Robert Nestor Kostyniuk

The husband appealed an equalization payment order, challenging the trial judge's findings on several disputed items in the net family property calculations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by denying the husband a deduction for property owned on the date of marriage, denying an exclusion for an inter vivos gift deposited into a joint bank account, and improperly valuing a vehicle acquired by gift.

The Court held that excluded property deposited into a joint account loses its exclusionary character only to the extent of the one-half interest presumed gifted to the spouse.

The equalization payment and costs awards were adjusted accordingly.

Following the breakdown of a common-law relationship, the applicant sought compensation relating to property and financial contributions during the relationship.

The court considered claims including unjust enrichment arising from profits on the sale of a chalet built during the relationship, reimbursement for repairs and completion of a drive shed, and claims relating to occupation rent and property maintenance after separation.

Applying the joint family venture analysis from Kerr v. Baranow, the court found the parties engaged in a joint enterprise and that the respondent would be unjustly enriched if the applicant did not share in the chalet profit.

The court also found an agreement that the respondent would construct the drive shed and ordered reimbursement for completion costs.

Claims relating to occupation rent and maintenance expenses were dismissed as offsetting each other.

In a family law dispute involving international connections, the respondent husband moved to stay the Ontario proceeding and transfer jurisdiction to France, arguing that the parties were French nationals, had signed a marriage contract referencing French law, and that a divorce proceeding had already commenced in France.

The court held that a prior consent order declaring Ontario to be the appropriate jurisdiction operated as res judicata and was not temporary.

The husband’s attempt to revisit jurisdiction was rejected, particularly in light of his repeated breaches of court orders and failures to provide disclosure.

The court dismissed the jurisdiction motion, ordered that the French proceeding be withdrawn, and directed that proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home be placed in trust due to concerns about the husband’s non-compliance with prior orders.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's decision, arguing errors of fact regarding credibility findings and the treatment of a family physician's opinion, as well as an error in principle regarding costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility findings were available on the record and that he was not bound to accept every aspect of the medical opinion.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding that the Simplified Procedure would not have been appropriate given how the defence was conducted.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's interpretation of a Defence Fee Funding Protocol, arguing they should have access to further frozen assets to pay legal costs after their bank account was depleted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the protocol's wording specifically limited access to the bank account and did not extend to assets subject to a proprietary claim.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding the appellants' access to $3,500 per month for living expenses from all frozen assets was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's discretionary decision to deny him leave to continue with his motion to change child support.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting the appellant's history of chronic delays, non-compliance with multiple court orders, and failure to make complete disclosure.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The respondents brought a motion for security for costs of the trial and the anticipated appeal.

The court applied the two-part test under Rule 61.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and vexatious, noting the trial judge's extensive findings of fact.

The court also found the corporate appellant had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay the costs, given outstanding judgments and lien claims against it.

The motion was granted, and the appellant's appeal was stayed pending the posting of security for costs.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing her claim for unpaid services against Tricaster, the shareholding company of the co-defendant Nucleus, and awarding costs of $15,339.44 to the respondents.

The appellant had obtained default judgment against Nucleus but could not collect because Tricaster seized Nucleus' assets under a General Security Agreement.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that there was insufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil or find an implied partnership.

However, the court allowed the appeal on costs, reducing the trial costs award to $7,500, finding the original amount disproportionately high given the modest amount at stake and the circumstances.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed income replacement benefits (IRBs), housekeeping benefits, and a special award.

The Arbitrator found that she was employed as a part-time bartender at the time of the accident, limiting her IRB entitlement to 10 weeks until she returned to that job.

The Arbitrator also excluded short-term disability benefits from her pre-accident gross income calculation, denied ongoing housekeeping benefits based on her family doctor's report, and refused a special award.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate upheld the Arbitrator's findings, concluding there were no errors of law in determining her employment status, calculating her gross income, or assessing her credibility and entitlement to benefits.

The appeal was dismissed.

The wife appealed a trial judgment regarding the equalization of net family property and the calculation of incomes for special or extraordinary child support expenses under s. 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The husband cross-appealed regarding property taxes on the matrimonial home and the trial costs award.

The Court of Appeal allowed the wife's appeal in part, finding that child support should not be deducted from or added to the parents' incomes when determining s. 7 expenses.

The court dismissed the remainder of the appeal and the cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on the family loan, property taxes, and costs.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, including income replacement and housekeeping benefits.

The insurer denied the income replacement benefits, arguing she was unemployed at the time of the accident.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's casual part-time work as a bartender constituted employment at the time of the accident, entitling her to income replacement benefits for a closed period of 10 weeks.

Claims for further housekeeping expenses and a special award were dismissed.

Following a settlement of all outstanding issues except expenses in a motor vehicle accident benefits arbitration, the applicant sought her costs of the proceeding.

The arbitrator assessed the legal fees and disbursements claimed by the applicant's two successive counsel.

Applying the criteria under the Insurance Act and the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, the arbitrator reduced the claimed hours and hourly rates, ultimately awarding $18,533.20 in legal fees and $9,968.09 in disbursements, plus applicable GST.

The appellant husband appealed a matrimonial judgment regarding spousal support, division of chattels, division of net family property, and life insurance for the child.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on support, net family property, and life insurance.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part regarding the division of chattels, noting the trial judge erred in ordering the sale of chattels belonging to a third party, and ordered a reference to determine ownership if the parties could not agree.