Alexandra Abramian

The plaintiff sought costs following the dismissal of the defendant's motion.

The plaintiff claimed $13,795.55 on a full indemnity basis or $9,456.35 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendant argued the costs were excessive and should be reserved in the cause.

The court found the motion was unnecessary and awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $9,000 plus HST.

The applicant, Lilia Chvartsman, brought a motion seeking the release of funds held in trust from the sale of a condominium.

These funds were the subject of ongoing litigation between the applicant and the respondent, Roman Chernyak, concerning the beneficial ownership of the property.

The respondent opposed the release, arguing that entitlement had not yet been determined.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the funds, being the very subject of the dispute, could not be released until the question of entitlement was resolved.

The applicant sought to set aside a 1984 separation agreement, challenge a spousal support waiver, obtain retroactive spousal support, and recover damages for alleged physical and sexual abuse occurring before and during the marriage.

The court held that the governing support-set-aside provision was s. 18(4) of the Family Law Reform Act, and found the waiver was not unconscionable given the asset division, the parties’ circumstances at the time, and the applicant’s understanding of the agreement.

In the alternative, the court found the agreement would not be set aside under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act because there was no failure to disclose significant assets, the applicant understood the agreement, and no contractual basis for rescission was established.

The tort claims were also dismissed because the court rejected the applicant’s credibility, preferred the respondent’s evidence, and found the alleged assaults were not proven on a balance of probabilities.

The applicant father brought a motion to change his child support obligations retroactive to 2010, arguing his income as a self-employed contractor was lower than the amount imputed in the parties' separation agreement.

The respondent mother alleged the father's business expenses and subcontractor invoices were fraudulent.

The court found no fraud but preferred the evidence of the jointly retained income valuator over the father's testimony regarding his business expenses.

The court determined the father's income for support purposes, calculated child support arrears and overpayments, and ordered the father to pay his proportionate share of section 7 expenses and RESP contributions.

Appeal from a family law trial decision concerning equalization of net family property, child support, spousal support, and costs.

The trial judge found the appellant had concealed substantial income through an improper insurance scheme and made extensive findings against his credibility.

The appellant, self-represented on appeal, challenged multiple aspects of the trial decision including the trial judge's treatment of his medical conditions, the respondent's asset disclosure, the award of child support, denial of occupation rent, and the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's findings of fact or exercise of discretion.

The parties separated after a long marriage involving multiple relocations between Latvia and Canada.

The husband sought equalization of net family property, child support, and spousal support.

The wife argued that a marriage contract signed in Latvia excluded her property from equalization.

The court found that while a marriage contract existed, its language did not explicitly or implicitly exclude the equalization provisions of the Family Law Act.

The court valued the parties' foreign and domestic assets, ordering the wife to pay an equalization payment of $71,633.50 in installments.

The wife was granted sole custody of the youngest child, and the husband was ordered to pay $174 monthly in child support based on an imputed minimum wage income.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support and various disclosure orders against her first husband, whom she divorced in 1985 with a separation agreement and decree nisi barring future support claims.

The court dismissed the motion for temporary spousal support, finding no prima facie entitlement and insufficient factual foundation to override the thirty-year-old separation agreement, especially given contradictory evidence regarding the applicant's allegations of abuse.

Most disclosure requests were also dismissed, except for one consented-to item.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the respondents following their successful motion to set aside an ex parte order.

The ex parte order was set aside due to the applicants' failure to make full and frank disclosure.

The court rejected the applicants' argument to reserve costs to a future motion judge, emphasizing the importance of full disclosure in ex parte applications and finding that the issue of disclosure was distinct from the merits of the underlying dispute.

This is a costs ruling following a respondent's motion for summary judgment.

The respondent sought to dismiss the applicant's claims to set aside a decree nisi and separation agreement, allowing her to pursue property division under the Family Law Act and spousal support.

The court granted summary judgment regarding the equalization claim but dismissed it for the balance of the applicant's claims.

Given the mixed success of both parties, the absence of cost-triggering offers to settle, and the applicant's unnecessarily expansive affidavit materials, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The respondent husband moved for the pre-trial sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The applicant wife opposed, citing concerns about the husband's finances, potential trauma to the children, and her desire to purchase his interest.

The court found compelling reasons for the sale, including the husband's prima facie right, the parties' inability to afford the home, and insufficient evidence of harm to the children.

The motion was granted, ordering the sale of the home, but providing the wife with an opportunity to purchase the husband's interest based on an appraisal, subject to specific financial adjustments and timelines.

The court also made interim child and spousal support orders.

The moving parties brought a motion to set aside an ex parte order that froze their bank accounts and required them to pay funds into court.

The court found that the responding parties failed to make full and fair disclosure of material facts when obtaining the ex parte order, specifically by providing misleading evidence regarding the urgency of the matter and the connection to a related action.

The court set aside the ex parte order, granting leave to bring the motion again on proper notice.

The respondent moved for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant's motion to change, which sought to set aside a 1984 separation agreement and 1985 decree nisi to pursue property division and spousal support.

The applicant alleged abuse, undue influence, coercion, duress, lack of independent legal advice, and non-disclosure of assets.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the equalization claim due to substantial prejudice from delay but dismissed the respondent's motion regarding spousal support, finding genuine issues for trial.

The applicant's constructive trust claim was withdrawn.

The applicant sought costs following a 12-day family law trial where there was divided success.

The applicant claimed costs on a full recovery basis, alleging the respondent acted in bad faith regarding financial disclosure and purported loans.

The court found the respondent's conduct came close to bad faith but was driven by self-interest rather than a devious intent to harm, thus rejecting the claim for full recovery costs.

Considering the divided success, the respondent's poor conduct, and a partially successful offer to settle by the respondent, the court fixed costs payable to the applicant at $20,000.

No costs were awarded for earlier urgent motions.

In this divorce application, the parties sought sole custody of their young child, equalization of net family property, and spousal and child support.

The respondent father argued the applicant mother's mental illness rendered her unfit for sole custody, while the mother raised concerns about parental alienation by the father's family.

The court ordered a shared parenting arrangement with divided decision-making authority, finding the mother's mental health was stable and posed no risk.

For equalization, the court found that $176,000 advanced to the father by his own father were gifts, not loans, resulting in an equalization payment of $114,261.02 to the mother.

Claims for spousal and child support were dismissed after imputing income to both parties.

The respondent father brought a motion to progressively expand his access schedule with his two-year-old child to include unsupervised and overnight access.

The applicant mother agreed in principle but requested a slower progression due to concerns about the father's past substance misuse and missed visits.

The court found that supervised access should not be permanent and ordered a structured, progressive schedule transitioning from supervised to unsupervised and eventually overnight access, with conditions prohibiting alcohol consumption and requiring secure storage of firearms.

The respondent wife brought a motion to consolidate a family law proceeding with a civil action commenced by her father-in-law regarding ownership of the matrimonial home, and to remove the applicant husband's counsel.

The court granted the consolidation, finding that the common issue of property ownership and the risk of inconsistent findings favoured combining the cases.

The court also ordered the removal of the husband's counsel, who also represented the father-in-law, because she had met directly with the represented wife without her counsel present, creating an appearance of impropriety and breaching the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In a family trial involving child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, equalization, sale of the matrimonial home, and occupational rent, the court found the applicant's financial disclosure inadequate and preferred the respondent's evidence on disputed issues.

The court determined that substantial unreported corporate and commission income arising from insurance and mortgage activities, including an improper insurance commission scheme, had to be included for support purposes, with limited deductions for legitimate expenses.

Child support arrears were fixed at $214,321 as of April 30, 2014, no spousal support was awarded because the applicant's income always exceeded the respondent's, and ongoing income of $95,000 was imputed from January 1, 2013.

The matrimonial home was ordered sold, the respondent received agreed credits and reimbursement for taxes and insurance, and the applicant's claim for occupational rent was dismissed.

Following a successful fraud trial brought under s. 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs payable to two successful creditor plaintiffs.

The defendants had engaged in fraudulent conveyances, document alteration, and litigation conduct that delayed the trial and attempted to mislead the court.

The court held that such conduct justified an award of full indemnity costs, an exceptional remedy reserved for egregious dishonesty and abuse of the judicial process.

After reviewing the draft bills of costs, the court reduced certain duplicative and insufficiently documented claims but fixed substantial full indemnity costs payable to each plaintiff.

The defendants were held jointly and severally liable for the costs, payable forthwith.

The plaintiffs, creditors of the bankrupt defendant, brought an action to set aside the conveyances of multiple real properties as fraudulent.

The defendant had transferred the properties to related individuals and shell corporations for nominal consideration shortly after defaulting on a business loan.

The court found that the defendant engaged in a pattern of dishonest conduct, including forging documents and manipulating trust declarations, to shield her assets from creditors.

Applying the balance of probabilities standard, the court held that the conveyances were fraudulent and void under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The properties were ordered to be sold with proceeds distributed to the plaintiffs and the bankruptcy trustee.

Following an urgent family law motion permitting the sale of the matrimonial home without the respondent spouse’s consent, the successful applicant sought full recovery costs.

The respondent argued that costs should either not be awarded or be reserved to the trial judge.

The court held that under the Family Law Rules there is a presumption that the successful party receives costs at each step of the proceeding.

Deferring costs to trial was inappropriate where the motion had been decided and the applicant had succeeded.

Costs were fixed at $4,000 payable by the respondent, subject to potential reconsideration at trial if bad faith were later established.