Robert Nestor Kostyniuk

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 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 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.