Galyna Viktorivna Pribytkova

Following a nine-day hybrid trial involving parenting and financial issues, the applicant sought full recovery costs of $301,514.81 alleging bad faith by the respondent.

The respondent argued for divided success and sought partial recovery costs.

The court found divided success on parenting issues but overall success for the applicant on financial issues.

The court held that neither party's conduct met the threshold for bad faith, noting unreasonable behaviour by both.

Considering the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including offers to settle and the respondent's financial circumstances, the court fixed a reduced global costs award of $110,000 to the applicant.

The applicant sought to enforce a separation agreement signed in March 2016 and fix the date of separation as the date of the agreement.

The respondent challenged the validity of the agreement and argued the date of separation was July 31, 2018.

The court set aside the separation agreement under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act because the applicant failed to disclose significant assets, specifically an impending $4 million investment in his company.

The court also found that the parties' conduct after March 2016, including living together, travelling, and attending therapy, indicated a reasonable prospect of reconciliation.

The court fixed the date of separation as July 31, 2018.

The appellant appealed an interim order that dismissed her motion for spousal support and section 7 expenses for prematurity.

The To Be Spoken To (TBST) judge had previously directed the parties to attend an urgent case conference on these issues.

However, the case conference judge mistakenly treated the attendance as a motion and dismissed it for lack of urgency under the Family Law Rules.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal, finding that the case conference judge erred by failing to follow the TBST judge's direction and by hearing a substantive motion at a case conference without the parties' consent.

The order was set aside, and the appellant was permitted to schedule her motion.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated May 4, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, ordered the appeal to be expedited, and awarded the moving party $2,000 in costs.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding interim parenting issues for their 6-year-old child, including school enrollment, afterschool care, summer camps, and health decision-making.

The father sought to change the child's school to Mineola Public School, while the mother sought to keep the child at Owenwood Public School.

The court found no material change in circumstances to justify varying the previous interim order regarding schooling.

The court also ordered the father to un-enroll the child from afterschool care at Mineola, as the mother had final decision-making authority for daycare.

The court split the summer camp schedule between the parents' choices and set exchange times for non-school days.

The matter was directed to a trial management conference.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing her appeal of a final order that found no material change in circumstances to justify continuing spousal support.

The Divisional Court upheld the lower court's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the determination that the appellant failed to prove a material change in circumstances under section 37(2) of the Family Law Act.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

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.