J. Harrison

The Plaintiff sought an order finding the L'vova Defendants (Aida L'vova and Yuri Kulinich) in contempt for breaching various court orders, including a Mareva injunction, an order for accounting, and an order to pay $700,000 into court.

The court found both Aida and Yuri in contempt, concluding they knowingly and deliberately acted to hide funds and defy court orders.

Aida directed the transfer of $700,000 to her son, who then transferred it to Yuri, who claimed to have used it for gambling debts.

The court imposed an initial 2-day detention, followed by an 88-day intermittent (weekend) incarceration if the $700,000 is not paid into court by mid-September 2018, emphasizing deterrence, denunciation, and coercion.

Following a summary judgment motion, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The defendants had sought dismissal of extensive extra‑contractual claims including allegations of bad faith, negligent claims handling, and mental distress damages totaling several million dollars, which the plaintiff abandoned on the eve of the motion.

Although the plaintiff successfully resisted dismissal of her contractual claim for non‑earner benefits, the court found the defendants were substantially successful because the principal damages claims were withdrawn or dismissed.

Applying the principles under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, the court determined that costs should generally follow the event but must remain fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs payable to the defendants in a reduced amount to reflect the plaintiff’s limited success on the motion.

The plaintiff brought an action against her insurer claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court applied the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin and Heath v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co., concluding that the evidence provided on the motion was insufficient to make the necessary qualitative findings of fact regarding the plaintiff's post-accident impairments.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, as a trial was required to achieve a fair and just adjudication.