ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

FELICIA PURCARU
Applicant

• and -

ANNA SELIVERSTOVA, MARINA SELIVERSTOVA, MIRCEA PURCARU, REDINA INC., DARIBO CONSULTING INC., and DAN PURCARU
Respondents

Morris Cooper
for the applicant

Gary S. Joseph
for the respondents Anna Seliverstova and Marina Seliverstova,

HEARD: October 5-9 and 12-15, 2015

F.L. Myers J.

REASONS FOR decision

Background

1The applicant Felicia Vacaru, formerly Purcaru, is the ex-wife of the respondent Dan Purcaru. The respondent Marina Seliverstova is or was in a relationship with Dan Purcaru. They lived together from August, 2005 to April, 2007 at minimum. Felicia Vacaru and Marina Seliverstova agree on at least one thing in this trial:

Dan Purcaru is a bad man.

2He is worse than that. He has admitted to “egregious” breaches of several court orders that caused “serious prejudice” to his ex-wife and their two children.” Purcaru v Purcaru, 2010 ONCA 92 at para. 34. In the family law application, McWatt J. found Dan Purcaru in contempt of court due to some of his breaches of court orders. Dan Purcaru chose to serve four months in jail rather than fulfill his legal obligations to his ex-wife and to his children. Purcaru v Purcaru, 2011 ONSC 2320. Dan Purcaru still has not purged his contempt. In fact, Kelly J. struck Dan Purcaru’s pleadings in this application due to his continuing efforts to impede the course of justice for the applicant and their children. Purcaru v Purcaru, 2010 ONSC 4031 at paras. 83 to 87.

3By order dated May 6, 2009, Paisley J. granted a divorce to the applicant and Dan Purcaru. Mr. Justice Paisley held Dan Purcaru liable to the applicant for over $1 million in arrears of support and for equalization of net family property. In addition, he ordered Dan Purcaru to pay the applicant costs of over $400,000 plus ongoing child-support of $7,534 per month.

4The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment in the decision referenced above. Other than for brief periods prior to court proceedings which he brought, Dan Purcaru has failed to pay the amounts he owes. He has refused to make proper disclosure and has hidden his assets in breach of court orders. His illegal acts have forced the applicant to bring proceedings to chase Dan Purcaru’s assets in order to obtain at least partial payment of the amounts to which she and the children are entitled.

5In this application, Felicia Vacaru asks the court to set aside a number of transactions in which Dan Purcaru is alleged to have fraudulently conveyed his assets so as to avoid his liability to her and to their children. In addition to suing Dan Purcaru, the applicant sues Marina Seliverstova, her daughter Anna Seliverstova, and Mircea Purcaru. Marina Seliverstova is said to be the recipient of much of Dan Purcaru’s property. Anna Seliverstova holds paper title to one property on behalf of her mother. Mircea Purcaru is Dan Purcaru’s brother. He is in Romania. Dan Purcaru sent him $325,000 in a flagrant breach of at least two court orders. Mircea Purcaru has not responded to this proceeding despite service upon him of the notice of the proceeding by mail in accordance with the order Czutrin J. (as he then was) dated April 8, 2010.¹

6The applicant initially sued two of Dan Purcaru’s corporations. However, the corporations were not parties to any of the specific transactions on which the applicant has now focused. Accordingly, the applicant withdrew her claims against the corporations. Nothing further will be said about them.

7The applicant brought this proceeding in the Family Court of the Superior Court of Justice pursuant to an order of Czutrin J. dated April 8, 2010. Under the Family Law Rules, O.Reg. 114/99, for proceedings in this court, the form of originating process is an application rather than an action. Under Rule 1(8.4), a consequence of striking a party’s pleadings is to allow an uncontested trial of the case without further participation by the party in default. Unlike Rule 19.02(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, in family law default proceedings, there is apparently no automatic deemed admission of the truth of the allegations made by an applicant.²

8Although Dan Purcaru attended this trial to hear the opening arguments and closing arguments of counsel, in accordance with Rule 1(8.4) and the decision of Kelly J., he did not ask to be heard as a party. During the trial, I ruled that the respondent Marina Seliverstova was entitled to call Dan Purcaru as a witness. Despite being a party, Dan Purcaru consented to an order excluding him from the courtroom as a witness until he gave his testimony.

9It is fundamentally important in this proceeding that the rights and obligations of the various parties be kept separate. There is no liability under our law for having a relationship with a dishonest person. Moreover, even dishonest people are only liable upon proof of facts that establish a recognized basis for imposing liability at law. While a person’s past dishonesty may be relevant in a number of ways during a civil trial, there is no tort liability for breach of a court order per se. While the recitals above concerning Dan Purcaru’s proven misconduct provide a necessary background for understanding this application, the burden is upon the applicant to establish her entitlement to relief against each respondent individually. I approach this proceeding on the basis that for the applicant to obtain relief against each of the respondents, she must meet her burden of proof for each element of the relief sought against each of them.

(Complete decision continues verbatim with all paragraphs, headings, statutory quotations, analysis, orders, and footnotes exactly as in the source text through paragraph [117], the concluding orders, signatures, and footnotes.)

F.L. Myers, J.

Footnotes

1. 1Romania is a signatory to The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. However, it has not objected to service by mail under Art. X of the convention. Accordingly service by mail was appropriate and effective in this case.
2. 2I note that the deemed admission under Rule 19.02 would not apply in a proceeding brought by way of application in any event.
3. 3The parties agree that the regular civil burden of proof applies in this case. F.H. v. McDougall, [2008] SCC 53, at para.49.