Arkadi Bouchelev

The parties separated after a short marriage of less than three years, having one child together.

The court ordered equal parenting time and joint decision-making responsibility, finding it in the child's best interests.

The father was ordered to pay child support arrears of $9,390.20, proportionate section 7 expenses, and mid-range spousal support of $41,432 over four years on compensatory and non-compensatory grounds.

The father was also ordered to pay an equalization payment of $14,550.67.

Following the dismissal of an appeal regarding a dismissed action for delay and discharged CPLs, the respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court ordered the appellant estate trustee to pay costs personally, finding that he stood to benefit from a successful appeal because his law firm was owed $150,000 in legal fees by the deceased.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct, and fixed partial indemnity costs at $12,200.

The appellant appealed an Associate Justice's order dismissing the action for delay and discharging certificates of pending litigation.

The underlying action involved allegations of misappropriated funds and breach of trust by the deceased plaintiff's family members.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Associate Justice's conclusions that the delay was inexcusable and that the loss of the plaintiff's capacity and subsequent death caused actual prejudice, making a fair trial impossible.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of an application for an Official Plan Amendment to alter the Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard designation boundaries on the subject lands to facilitate future residential development.

The parties reached a settlement that revised the Hazard Land Overlay and created a Special Policy Area requiring further environmental and geotechnical studies before development.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert evidence and approved the settlement, finding the revised amendment consistent with provincial policies and in the public interest.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference to resolve disputes regarding the Procedural Order and Issues List for an appeal of a refused Official Plan Amendment.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant to provide updated technical studies and a draft OPA prior to the witness statement deadline to ensure fairness.

The Tribunal also ruled that the Issues List would include an issue regarding the weight to be given to the County's newly adopted Official Plan, noting that the Clergy Principle is a discretionary procedural policy.

The Tribunal further refined issues relating to the Provincial Planning Statement and the absence of a specific development proposal.

The appellant moved for a stay pending appeal of an order directing the sale of the matrimonial home.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by ordering the sale under the Partition Act when it had not been explicitly pleaded.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried but concluded the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any harm would be purely monetary.

The balance of convenience also favoured the respondent, who needed access to the home's equity.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

Costs endorsement following the dismissal of an emergency application.

The applicant in the underlying proceeding had sought to enjoin the respondent city from exercising rights under an easement agreement, which had been confirmed by both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal.

The court found the application constituted a collateral attack, an abuse of process, and was brought on unreasonably short notice with voluminous materials.

The city sought substantial indemnity costs of $25,150.41, which the court awarded in full, finding the amount proportionate given the unreasonable and ill-advised nature of the proceeding.

The defendants brought a motion to strike out the third party claim as disclosing no cause of action.

The third party claim named 27 different third parties, including individual shareholders and their spouses, corporate entities, the plaintiffs' bank, and the plaintiffs' lawyers.

The court found that the third party claim was based on bald allegations without material facts and failed to meet the minimal pleading standards.

The court struck the third party claim in its entirety with leave to amend and awarded costs to the third parties on a partial indemnity scale.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal of a municipal council's refusal to amend an Official Plan, the parties sought direction on the scope of the Issues List.

The appellant sought to alter a Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard boundary to facilitate a future severance, arguing the hearing should only address the boundary adjustment.

The municipality argued that because the appellant effectively sought a new Residential designation for the lands, policies relating to residential uses and settlement areas were relevant.

The Tribunal agreed with the municipality, finding that to replace the current designation with a Residential one, the appropriateness of that new designation must be evaluated, making the related policies relevant for the Issues List.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Municipality of Central Elgin's refusal to amend its Official Plan.

The applicant sought to alter 'Natural Heritage' and 'Natural Hazard' designations to facilitate a future consent application for lot severance.

The Tribunal granted party status to the County of Elgin and participant status to the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority and a local resident.

A 10-day merit hearing was scheduled for February 2026, and the parties were directed to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellants appealed an order made at a case conference holding them liable for tax penalties and interest resulting from their oppressive conduct.

They argued the application judge lacked authority to make a substantive order at a case conference and denied them procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court held that Rule 50.13(6) permits judges to issue directions, including substantive orders, at case conferences in appropriate circumstances to promote efficiency.

The court found no procedural unfairness, as the appellants were informed of the conference's purpose and had the opportunity to submit materials.

The appeal was allowed in part only to correct an agreed-upon calculation error.

The Respondents (Ebrahimi Parties) brought a motion under Rule 59.06 to set aside or vary three prior court orders related to the implementation of Minutes of Settlement, alleging fraud and newly discovered facts.

They also sought a declaration that the Minutes of Settlement were void.

The Applicants (PCCI) brought a cross-motion to enforce the Minutes of Settlement.

The court granted leave to admit new evidence (February 2024 Memo) and found that PCCI's actions in pursuing criminal charges and restitution in Iran, contrary to their obligations under the Minutes of Settlement, constituted a fundamental breach.

Consequently, the court set aside the relevant implementation orders and declared the Minutes of Settlement null and void, dismissing PCCI's enforcement motion.

The court also addressed costs, awarding partial indemnity costs to the Respondents.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant wife brought a motion seeking extensive financial disclosure from third-party corporate respondents, alleging her husband had an undisclosed ownership interest in them and used them to fund their lifestyle.

The corporate respondents argued they were not bound by a prior disclosure order and that the husband was merely an employee or bare trustee.

The court found the corporate respondents were not in breach of the prior order, as it only applied to the husband.

However, the court ordered the corporate respondents to produce the requested financial and corporate records, finding them highly relevant and necessary to determine the husband's true income and potential ownership interests, subject to the wife signing a Non-Disclosure Agreement.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action for delay and discharge certificates of pending litigation.

The action, commenced in 2014, arose from an alleged oral trust agreement and wrongful eviction.

The original plaintiff lost capacity and passed away during a lengthy period of inactivity, and her evidence was never preserved.

The court found the delay to be inordinate, inexcusable, and highly prejudicial, as a fair trial was no longer possible without the deceased plaintiff's direct evidence.

The motion was granted, the action was dismissed, and the certificates of pending litigation were discharged.

The Long Branch Neighbourhood Association (LBNA) brought a motion seeking relief from TLAB Rule 16 to admit a late expert witness statement from an urban forestry expert.

The hearing of the merits had been previously adjourned.

The TLAB granted the motion, finding that the proposed evidence regarding tree health was relevant to the proceedings and that the adjournment provided sufficient time for the other parties to prepare.

The appellant appealed the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's refusal to grant a permit for the construction of a single-family dwelling on a vacant lot located within a floodplain and riverine erosion hazard area.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would have no negative impact on the control of flooding and erosion under O Reg 166/06.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the proposed development was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as it would be located within a floodway and lacked safe access for vehicles and pedestrians during a flood event.

The Tribunal also found the proposal inconsistent with the conservation authority's internal policies prohibiting new development in flood hazards.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant property owner appealed a judgment granting the City's application to enforce a Heritage Easement Agreement.

The appellant had made unauthorized alterations to his property, including cutting down trees and building a hockey rink and cabana.

The application judge found the appellant breached the Agreement and granted a permanent injunction.

On appeal, the appellant argued the application judge misinterpreted the Agreement and that the City's enforcement was motivated by bad faith.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the application judge's decision and concluding that the City had exercised its contractual discretion in good faith.

The court considered interim costs submissions following the first stage of a bifurcated trial, which had dismissed the plaintiff's claims for declaratory relief.

The plaintiff argued that a costs award at this stage was premature, citing precedents that costs are typically awarded at the conclusion of the second stage of bifurcated proceedings.

The court agreed with the plaintiff, finding that a full appreciation of overall success and all relevant Rule 57 considerations, including Rule 49 offers, could only be made after the entire trial.

Consequently, the determination of costs was deferred to the completion of the proceedings.

The appellants appealed the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority's decision to deny a building permit for a renovation project on a rural property.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal scheduled a five-day hearing on the merits to commence on July 8, 2024, and directed the parties to file a draft procedural order and issues list.

The appellant valet parking operator appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding it liable for the theft of the respondent's vehicle, which was stolen after an employee left it idling and unattended with the keys inside.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings on negligence and agency, agreeing that the valet breached the standard of care.

However, the appeal was granted because the trial judge erred by adding a related corporate entity as a defendant on their own initiative without a motion, notice, or an opportunity for the added party to respond.

The matter was remanded for a new trial.