COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Thorburn J.A. (Motion Judge)
BETWEEN
Vem Yenovkian
Applicant (Appellant/Responding Party)
and
Shirtliff-Hinds Professional Corporation
Respondent
(Respondent/Moving Party)
Robert B. Macdonald, for the moving party Shirtliff-Hinds Professional Corporation
Vem Yenovkian, acting in person
Jacob Medvedev, appearing as amicus curiae
Heard: May 20, 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION
Relief Sought
1The moving party respondent, Shirtliff-Hinds Professional Corporation (“SHPC”), seeks an order pursuant to r. 61.06(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, that the responding party appellant, Vem Yenovkian post security for costs.
2SHPC also seeks a stay of Mr. Yenovkian’s appeal pending compliance with the requested order, and an order allowing it to move without notice to dismiss the appeal if security is not posted.
3SHPC claims security for costs should be ordered as: (a) there is good reason to believe the appeal is frivolous and vexatious; and (b) the responding party, who is not resident in Ontario, lacks sufficient assets to pay the costs of the appeal.
4SHPC seeks the sum of $26,375.32 for security for costs of the appeal and the outstanding costs ordered in the judgment under appeal.
5Mr. Yenovkian submits that the requested order is unnecessary and would effectively deprive him of the ability to continue his appeal. He also seeks an order under r. 57.07 sanctioning the conduct of Robert B. Macdonald, SHPC’s lawyer.
The Evidence
6In July 2018, Mr. Yenovkian retained SHPC to act for him in a family law proceeding. He sought temporary sole custody of his two children with him in Ontario and opposed his former spouse’s request that she be permitted to move to England with the children. He paid $126, 871 in legal fees to SHPC.
7His motion was dismissed on September 4, 2018. The motion judge determined that despite Mr. Yenovkian’s representations to the court, he did not reside in Ontario. SHPC terminated the retainer shortly after the motion decision, noting that Yenovkian misled SHPC by claiming that his passport was in Los Angeles and that he was in Canada without a passport, while his former spouse’s records showed that he was flying back and forth to the United States.
8On September 26, 2018, Mr. Yenovkian obtained an order for assessment of his fees under the Solicitors Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.15. The assessment was scheduled to proceed on June 23, 2025.
9On June 23, 2025, the parties attended the assessment hearing remotely. Before the hearing began, Mr. Yenovkian’s lawyer asked to speak with SHPC’s counsel. The parties engaged in settlement discussions. Ultimately, the assessment officer issued an endorsement indicating that, “Counsel advise that the matter has settled in principle.”
10Later that day, counsel for SHPC emailed Mr. Yenovkian’s counsel to advise of the following:
I confirm the parties have agreed to settle this proceeding on the following terms:
Mr. Yenovkian will deliver a full and final release in favour of my client, which release will be in the LawPro standard form and subject to the approval of both counsel acting reasonably. For further clarity, I intend for the Full and Final Release to include Mr. Yenovkian’s known aliases.
The signed Full and Final Release will be delivered to you within 7 days of today’s date, and you will hold the signed Full and Final Release in escrow pending completion of the settlement.
Provided that Mr. Yenovkian has complied with his obligations as set out above, Shirtliff-Hinds Professional Corporation shall pay to your firm in trust the all-inclusive sum of $56,250.00 as follows: a. $30,000.00 within 30 days of today’s date; and b. $26,250.00 within 90 days of today’s date.
Upon completion of the settlement in accordance with these terms, the parties shall consent to the proceeding being closed or dismissed by the assessment office, and you will deliver the signed Full and Final Release to me.
Please confirm that these terms are acceptable by return email. If you wish to discuss anything, my number is below.
11Mr. Yenovkian’s counsel replied: “all conditions acceptable.”
12SHPC’s counsel replied, “Thank you. I confirm the parties’ agreement is binding.”
13Mr. Yenovkian claims that his counsel disclosed the terms of the proposed release to him for the first time on June 26. He objected to the inclusion of the confidentiality clause, which is included in the LawPro standard form release. That day, his counsel emailed SHPC’s counsel that the confidentiality clause would be a “nonstarter”.
14On July 3, SHPC agreed to remove the confidentiality provision from the draft release and provided a blackline version showing the change. Mr. Yenovkian’s counsel wrote back, indicating that his client was still not prepared to accept “the terms of the release as it relates to confidentiality” and would therefore “not be signing it.”
15On July 30, Parghi J. directed that a case conference be scheduled to address the enforcement of the settlement. The notice to the parties advising of the date of the case conference also advised that substantive orders could be granted, as the “overriding” objective of the case conference was “for the judge to decide the issue on the merits without any further hearing.”
16The case conference was conducted on November 13, 2025. The case conference judge Papageorgiou J. issued an order enforcing the terms of settlement with reasons explaining that a settlement was reached and that disagreement as to the form of release is not a valid defence to a settlement.
17Mr. Yenovkian filed his Notice of Appeal on March 6, 2026.
The Issues
18The issue on this motion is whether (a) the appeal is frivolous and vexatious; and (b) whether Mr. Yenovkian lacks sufficient assets in Ontario. I may exercise my discretion to order security for costs if both prerequisites of r. 61.06(1)(a) are met.
Analysis
19Rule 61.06(1) provides that:
In an appeal where it appears that,
(a) there is good reason to believe that the appeal is frivolous and vexatious and that the appellant has insufficient assets in Ontario to pay the costs of the appeal;
(b) an order for security for costs could be made against the appellant under rule 56.01; or
(c) for other good reason, security for costs should be ordered,
a judge of the appellate court, on motion by the respondent, may make such order for security for costs of the proceeding and of the appeal as is just.
A. Whether the proposed appeal is frivolous and vexatious
20The first part of the test is to determine if there is good reason to believe that the appeal is frivolous and vexatious.
21The moving party agreed to a reduction in the fees charged to the respondent on the terms set out in the settlement agreement. The only issue raised by the respondent in respect of the settlement agreement was the confidentiality provision in the release, which the moving party agreed to remove.
22A settlement is binding even if the form of release is not settled unless the agreement provides otherwise: Olivieri v. Sherman, 2007 ONCA 491, 86 O.R. (3d) 778, at paras. 46-48. “[T]he first question to be asked when deciding whether a settlement was concluded is whether the parties reached an agreement on all essential terms” and “only thereafter that the question of completion of the agreement is considered”: para. 48.
23Mr. Yenovkian’s subsequent insistence on removing the confidentiality provision in the release was not a condition of the settlement agreement, and in any event, the moving party agreed to remove it.
24Moreover, Mr. Yenovkian was advised by Parghi J. in advance of the case conference that the reason for the case conference was to decide the merits without a further hearing. He had notice that a substantive order could be issued. In appropriate cases, and on notice, case conference judges have authority to issue directions which can include substantive orders: Grovum v. Kouznetsov, 2025 ONSC 3899, at para. 26.
25As such, in my view, the appeal is frivolous.
26I am also satisfied that it is vexatious. Despite the settlement, Mr. Yenovkian has brought an action against SHPC in Nevada, which also names the trial judge in the underlying family law proceeding. Mr. Yenovkian continues to reject requests to demonstrate that he has assets in Ontario sufficient to satisfy a cost award. I also note Mr. Yenovkian’s request that Mr. Macdonald be subject to a r. 57.07 order for bringing this motion. In my view this request is wholly unreasonable.
27The frivolous and vexatious threshold is met, satisfying the first requirement of r. 61.06(1)(a).
B. Whether there are assets in Ontario
28Under rule 61.06(1)(a), the moving party must also demonstrate that the responding party is not resident in Ontario. The onus then shifts to the responding party to demonstrate that he has assets in Ontario: O.K. v. M.H., 2025 ONCA 352, at para. 13.
29There is no dispute that Mr. Yenovkian lives in Nevada and has previously claimed to have no income. Moreover, despite repeated requests from SHPC, he has failed to meet his onus to demonstrate that he has assets in the province of Ontario.
30Moreover, if SHPC is awarded costs, it will be extremely difficult to collect those costs as not only does Mr. Yenovkian reside in Nevada but he has been known to use several aliases. Enforcement in Nevada will likely be very difficult if not impractical given Mr. Yenovkian’s documented use of aliases in court proceedings.
31As such, I am satisfied that Mr. Yenovkian does not reside in Ontario and has not demonstrated that he has assets in Ontario to satisfy the moving party’s costs if the appeal is unsuccessful.
Conclusion
32For the above reasons, I find that there is good reason to believe the appeal is frivolous and vexatious. In addition, Mr. Yenovkian has no known connection to Ontario and has refused to provide any evidence that he has assets in the jurisdiction. I am satisfied that there is a real risk that the moving party will be unable to recover both the costs of the appeal and the costs of the underlying settlement enforcement decision.
33I therefore order that Mr. Yenovkian post $26,375.32 in costs, which includes costs ordered by the case conference judge in the amount of $5,760.73 and anticipated costs of this appeal in the amount of $20,614.59, inclusive of HST and disbursements. Mr. Yenovkian’s appeal is stayed pending his compliance with this order and if he does not post the security as ordered, SHPC may move to dismiss the appeal without notice.
34Mr. Yenovkian’s request for a personal costs order against Mr. Macdonald pursuant to r. 57.07 is also dismissed. Mr. Macdonald has at all times acted as a commendable officer of the court and there is no reason to impose any order against him.
“Thorburn J.A.”