Ruslana Korytko

The appellant appealed a trial decision concerning spousal support, equalization payment, imputation of income, and the dismissal of a fresh evidence motion.

The respondent cross-appealed regarding an error in the equalization calculation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal on all five grounds, affirming the trial judge's decisions on interpreter competency, lump sum child support, income imputation, spousal support, and the refusal to admit fresh evidence.

The court allowed the respondent's cross-appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by not deducting the value of a date of marriage asset from the respondent's net family property in the equalization calculations, leading to an increased equalization payment owed by the appellant.

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 appellant appealed a motion judge's order declaring a Russian divorce invalid.

The parties were Russian citizens and permanent residents of Canada who separated in Canada in 2015.

The appellant obtained a divorce in Russia in 2016 without properly serving the respondent, who was living in Canada.

The motion judge declared the Russian divorce invalid based on lack of notice.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by not first determining whether the parties had a real and substantial connection to Russia.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge properly focused on the denial of natural justice (lack of notice) and was not required to analyze the real and substantial connection issue first.

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 sought to invalidate a Russian divorce, increase temporary spousal support, and increase temporary child support.

The respondent sought summary judgment upholding the Russian divorce, terminating spousal support, and reducing child support.

The court found the Russian divorce invalid due to the respondent's failure to provide proper notice and documentation to the applicant.

Both parties' requests to vary a prior temporary support order were dismissed, as no urgent circumstances were demonstrated to justify departing from the practice of not amending temporary orders pending trial.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion brought by the plaintiffs for a further and better affidavit of documents and a timetable for trial.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs, finding that the defendants' unexplained delay, particularly given the plaintiffs' advanced age and frail health, constituted bad faith.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the complexity, importance, and conduct of the parties.

While adjusting the plaintiffs' claimed fees for waiting time and excessive photocopy charges, the court largely upheld the claim, noting the defendants' failure to provide their own dockets for comparison.

The applicant sought to vary a consent order for spousal support and matrimonial home carrying costs, citing undue hardship and a material change in circumstances due to income loss and alleged hidden income by the respondent.

The court applied the material change test from L.M.P. v. L.S. and found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving a material change on a balance of probabilities.

The motion was dismissed.