Galyna Pribytkova

The applicant father brought a motion for equal parenting time with the parties' six-year-old daughter and an order prohibiting the respondent mother from leaving the child unattended with a specific friend.

The court found that the previous interim consent order did not establish a status quo requiring a material change in circumstances to vary.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court ordered a 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule, finding both parents capable and loving.

The request to restrict the mother's friend was dismissed as the allegations were unsubstantiated.

The applicant brought a motion to amend a final order, alleging fraud by the respondent.

The court previously dismissed the motion, finding no fraud, but corrected three calculation errors conceded by the respondent.

In this costs endorsement, the respondent sought full indemnity costs due to the unproven fraud allegations.

The court rejected the applicant's request to defer costs to the trial judge, finding the applicant persisted with baseless fraud claims despite the respondent's early concessions.

The applicant was ordered to pay full indemnity costs of $16,615.59.

The applicant father brought a motion under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to set aside or vary a 2018 final order regarding child support arrears and section 7 expenses.

He alleged the order was obtained by fraud because the respondent mother misrepresented facts about where the children lived and her income.

The court found that the father had wilfully ignored the 2018 proceedings despite having notice, and failed to prove fraud.

The motion was dismissed, save for minor calculation errors conceded by the mother.

The applicant mother brought an uncontested motion to change a 2001 child support order, seeking retroactive and prospective increases in table child support and section 7 expenses.

The respondent father failed to provide financial disclosure or participate in the proceedings.

Applying the DBS factors, the court found the mother had a reasonable excuse for delay due to severe injuries from car accidents, and the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose income.

The court imputed income to the father at $78,661 per year based on averaging past income, ordered retroactive support and section 7 expenses totaling over $138,000, and awarded full indemnity costs of $19,000 to the mother.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant purchaser for unjust enrichment and knowing receipt after the plaintiffs' employee fraudulently pocketed the proceeds from the sale of seven vehicles.

The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding that the valid contracts of sale constituted a juristic reason for the enrichment.

The knowing receipt claim was also dismissed because the defendant paid fair market value, made reasonable inquiries regarding the unusual payment methods, and was not willfully blind to the employee's fraud.

Following the breakdown of a marriage, the parties had entered into a separation agreement under which the respondent would transfer his half of the matrimonial condominium to the applicant in exchange for a release of spousal and child support.

The agreement was drafted by a jointly retained paralegal without independent legal advice and was never fully implemented.

The court found that the respondent repudiated the agreement by demanding new terms before transferring title, but both parties ultimately treated the agreement as terminated during litigation.

The court dismissed claims to rescind or enforce the agreement and instead determined custody, retroactive and ongoing child support, section 7 expenses, and equalization of net family property under the Family Law Act.

The respondent was ordered to pay retroactive support for two children from January 1, 2010 and ongoing table support, while many claimed extraordinary expenses were rejected due to lack of proof.

The matrimonial home was ordered sold with proceeds applied first to support arrears, equalization, and costs before being divided equally.

Following dismissal of a family law appeal concerning renewal or termination of spousal support, the successful respondent sought costs of the appeal.

The court applied the presumption under the Family Law Rules that a successful party is entitled to costs and considered factors including the importance of the issue, the parties’ conduct, settlement efforts, and ability to pay.

Although the unsuccessful appellant acted sincerely and not unreasonably, the respondent had succeeded at both trial and on appeal and reasonably expected a costs award.

The court declined to order full indemnity but found the claimed time and hourly rate reasonable.

Costs were fixed at a fair and reasonable amount of $2,500 payable by the appellant.

The applicant sought an interim costs order under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules requiring the respondent to advance funds for anticipated questioning and litigation expenses relating to spousal support and property equalization claims.

The court emphasized that the discretion to award interim costs must be exercised to ensure procedural fairness and a level playing field.

The court found the applicant failed to demonstrate financial need or provide sufficient evidence of anticipated legal expenses.

Evidence showed the applicant was receiving spousal support, benefitting from a partner’s contribution to household expenses, had taken a recent vacation, and had chosen to return to school instead of seeking full-time employment.

In the absence of detailed cost estimates or a bill of costs, the court declined to order interim costs but left open the possibility of a renewed motion with fuller evidence.