Galyna Viktorivna Pribytkova

This costs endorsement followed a 10-day family law trial.

The court addressed outstanding trial issues and determined costs.

The parties failed to provide focused submissions on clarifications regarding the matrimonial home, spousal lump sum payments, and reconciliation of past payments, instead attempting to re-litigate prior findings.

The court clarified that spousal support was retroactive to the date of separation and confirmed an agreement to set off matrimonial home expenses against occupation rent.

It declined to reconcile child support and s.7 expenses due to confusing submissions, directing parties to its prior judgment.

Regarding costs, both parties sought full indemnity.

The court found success was divided and criticized both parties' conduct, including the applicant's persistent mischaracterization of the respondent's professional designation and the respondent's inadequate disclosure.

Given the shortcomings of both parties and the excessive time spent on litigation, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The applicant brought a motion to reopen a family law case after a final judgment, seeking to admit fresh evidence related to the respondent's employment income and his counsel's alleged misconduct concerning the registration of a security instrument on the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed evidence regarding income would not have changed the trial outcome and was largely an attempt to revisit prior rulings.

The court also found no basis to admit evidence regarding counsel's conduct, as it would not alter the previous findings of the respondent's incredibility, and the applicant had not clearly articulated the purpose or remedy sought.

The Applicant sought child support, s. 7 expenses, sale of the matrimonial home, equalization, and lump sum payments, requesting the Respondent's income be imputed at $60,000-$100,000.

The Respondent sought spousal support, disputed his imputed income, and challenged equalization.

The court imputed the Respondent's income at $28,000 and the Applicant's at $92,000.

The Respondent was awarded $905 per month in indefinite spousal support and the Applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $17,419.60.

The Respondent was ordered to pay $428 per month in child support, with s. 7 expenses shared 23% by the Respondent and 77% by the Applicant.

The sale of the matrimonial home and occupation rent were not ordered, with parties encouraged to agree or make further submissions.

The applicant, Carlene Charles, sought interim support from the estate of her late husband, Lennard Charles, as a dependant under the Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA).

Prior to his death from terminal cancer, Mr. Charles significantly altered his will and transferred assets, reducing the estate's value and Ms. Charles's inheritance.

The Estate opposed the motion, arguing Ms. Charles had no need for support given her consistent income, which exceeded her husband's in his final years, and that Mr. Charles's actions were reasonable in light of their separation.

The court applied the test for interim support under s. 64 of the SLRA, requiring the applicant to demonstrate need and entitlement.

The court found Ms. Charles was not in need of support at the time of her husband's death, as her income was higher, and her claims were largely property-based rather than income-based.

The motion for interim support was dismissed, but the Estate was ordered to reimburse Ms. Charles for excess interest paid on a line of credit.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful summary judgment motion brought by the third party, Atlant Services, against Timberlea Construction and Roofing Ltd. Timberlea was wholly successful in defending the motion.

The court found Timberlea's submitted costs for the summary judgment motion to be reasonable and proportionate, and awarded Timberlea its costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $7,153.18, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Atlant Services, a third party, moved for partial summary judgment against Timberlea Construction and Roofing Ltd., arguing it was an employee of Timberlea or, alternatively, that the third-party claim was statute-barred.

The court found significant material facts in dispute regarding the employment relationship and vicarious liability, making it impossible to reach a fair and just determination without a full trial and viva voce evidence.

The court also dismissed the limitation period argument, finding the third-party claim was commenced within the statutory period.

The motion for partial summary judgment was dismissed.