NEWMARKET COURT FILE NO.: FC-15-47556-01

DATE: 20210322

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO – FAMILY COURT

RE: Lyubov Babinets, Applicant

AND:

Alexander Babinets, Respondent

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice G.A. MacPherson

COUNSEL: S. Zaslavsky, Counsel for the Applicant

J. Rechtshaffen, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: March 10, 2021

ruling on motion

Relief Requested

[1] The Applicant brings a motion requesting an Order:

(a) that the Respondent is in contempt of the March 30, 2020 and April 24, 2020 Orders;

(b) a request for third party records, specifically banking records;

(c) a final Order on the default of the Respondent; and

(d) an Order for spousal support.

[2] The Respondent brings a cross-motion requesting an Order:

(a) setting aside my Order dated November 18, 2020 noting the Respondent in default;

(b) an Order granting the Respondent with an extension to file his Answer; and

(c) an Order that there be a Case Conference before the Applicant’s motions are heard.

Background

[3] The parties commenced a relationship in or about 2000. The parties cohabited for a number of years and married on September 17, 2015. There are no children of the marriage.

[4] The Applicant says the parties separated November 23, 2019.

[5] During their relationship, the parties received income from two sources: 2455181 Ontario Inc. (Fitness Scarborough Corp.); and 2009110 Ontario Inc. (Express Fitness Woodbridge Corp.).

[6] The Respondent is the sole shareholder and director of 2455181 Ontario Inc. (Fitness Scarborough Corp.).

[7] The Applicant and the Respondent are the joint owners of 2009110 Ontario Inc. (Express Fitness Woodbridge Corp.).

[8] According to the parties, the most profitable company of the two was 2009110 Ontario Inc. (Express Fitness Woodbridge Corp.). The income from both companies has supported the family for many years.

[9] Everything changed following the parties’ separation.

Transfer of Business Income

[10] The Respondent states that in February 2020 he incorporated two new businesses, 2471345 Ontario Inc., and 2471333 Ontario Inc., and started to make deposits of gym memberships into these accounts at Toronto-Dominion [“TD”] banks. This decision was not made with the consent or knowledge of the Applicant and re-directed all of the funds from two corporations into the accounts of two new corporations set up by the Respondent.

Removal of Joint Account Proceeds

[11] In November 2019 the Respondent advised the Applicant that he was going to remove money from the joint account to protect against creditors.

[12] The Applicant states that the Respondent did in fact remove $272,921.61 from their joint account.

[13] The Respondent states that the Applicant removed $5,000 cash from the joint account and that $17,921,61 was transferred from the joint account into the business account. The Respondent admits that he removed $250,000 from the joint account.

[14] Of the $250,000 removed from the joint account by the Respondent, he states that $70,000 was deposited into the account of 2009110 Ontario Inc. (Express Fitness Woodbridge Corp.) and $10,000 was placed into each of the newly opened accounts at TD for the new businesses, 2471345 Ontario Inc, and 2471333 Ontario Inc.

[15] The Respondent states that the balance of the funds ($160,000) were hidden in the trunk of the Mercedes which the Applicant now has.

[16] The Applicant states that there was no money hidden in the trunk.

[17] The Respondent’s explanation that he hid $160,000 in the trunk of the Mercedes, as I stated in my Endorsement of March 30, 2020, “which explanation is hard to accept, and, if true, was completely irresponsible. He withdrew the parties’ life savings from a secure location, the bank, without the consent of the Applicant.”

[18] It is noteworthy that, as a result of the Ontario government declaring a state of emergency and closing non-essential businesses, including gyms, the Respondent states that he suspended receipt of gym memberships during this period of closure.

Order of March 30, 2020

[19] On March 30, 2020 I heard an urgent motion. Both parties were represented by counsel at the motion and they received the following Order:

1. The Respondent shall immediately resume the depositing of all income from gym membership fees into RBC Account 00754-1003276.

2. The Respondent shall, forthwith, provide to the Applicant an accounting of all deposits made to the accounts of 2471345 Ontario Inc., and 2471333 Ontario Inc. and shall immediately transfer the deposits into RBC Account 00754-1003276.

3. Until the funds are transferred, as set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Order, the Respondent is deemed to be holding 2471345 Ontario Inc. and 2471333 Ontario Inc. in trust for the equal benefit of the Applicant.

4. The Respondent shall, forthwith, transfer the amount of $160,000 back into the parties’ joint bank account.

5. The Respondent shall not encumber, dissipate or otherwise dilute any income received for 2009110 Ontario Inc. and 2455181 Ontario Inc. nor any of the assets of said corporations without the consent of the Applicant.

6. Until further Order of this court, or on the consent of the parties, the RBC Account 00754-1003276 shall pay, on the first of every month commencing April 1, 2020:

(i) $1,500 towards the rental of 21 Retreat Blvd., Woodbridge;

(ii) $2,000 to the Applicant; and

(iii) $2,000 to the Respondent.

7. An urgent Case Conference shall be scheduled by the Trial Coordinator when the courts resume normal operations on or about June 1, 2020.

Order of April 24, 2020

[20] On April 24, 2020 the parties entered into an Order on consent:

1. By Monday, April 27, 2020, the Respondent shall make a $10,000 uncharacterized payment to the Applicant, which shall be a credit to the Respondent in the case, without prejudice to any claims that he may advance in these proceedings. This payment shall be made out to "Arseny Zaslavsky, in Trust." This amount is in addition to the payments already made by the Respondent in the sum of $2,000 for each of April and May, 2020, for a total of $4,000.

2. By July 1, 2020, the Respondent shall make a further $6,000 uncharacterized payment to the Applicant, which shall be a credit to the Respondent in the case, without prejudice to any claims that he may advance in these proceedings. This payment shall be made out to "Arseny Zaslavsky, in Trust."

3. All of the businesses owned by one or both parties and without limitation the following businesses shall be preserved pending further agreement of the parties or Orders of the court: 2009110 Ontario Inc., 2455181 Ontario Inc., 2471345 Ontario Inc. and 247133 Ontario Inc. (hereinafter "the businesses").

4. Neither party shall remove, transfer or dissipate in any manner whatsoever any funds in the accounts of the businesses, to the extent any funds remain. If any remaining funds are required to be removed for the day to day operations of the business or any and all other business related expenses, consent of both parties is required in writing.

5. Within two weeks of the date of acceptance of this Offer to Settle, the Respondent shall provide a full accounting to the Applicant with respect to funds that he directed to his accounts at the Toronto Dominion Bank and how they have been spent and what of it remains, if any, with supporting documentation.

6. Neither party shall remove, alter, damage or otherwise restrict access to any equipment, including, but not limited to, computers, gym equipment, audio equipment, video equipment, the security systems of the premises "Express Fitness" — 311 Cityview Blvd. and 1399 Kennedy Road. Any and all equipment of the business facilities shall be specifically preserved by the parties until further agreement or Order of the court.

7. The parties shall immediately open up a new account where all proceeds of the above named businesses shall be deposited. Both parties shall have full access to the accounts, but no monies may be withdrawn or paid out of the account without the authorization of both parties, in writing. For clarity, this provision shall be good and sufficient authorization for any banking institution within Canada to deny any withdrawals from the account unless authorized by Alexander Babinets and Lyubov Babinets, in writing. If, however, any banking institution requires anything further from the parties to give effect to this paragraph of the Order, then both parties shall comply.

8. The parties shall cooperate and through their matrimonial counsel shall obtain the necessary legal advice from a business and/or bankruptcy lawyer as required to deal with all of the outstanding creditors of the businesses and without limitation, the following: Bennington Financial, IndCom Leasing Inc., LeaseLink, Monoplie Electric, RBC and BDC.)

9. Without prejudice to the Respondent's position that he is the owner of 2455181 Ontario Inc. (Express Fitness Scarborough), 2471345 Ontario Inc. and 247133 Ontario Inc., any communication with existing creditors of the businesses shall take place through the Applicant and her counsel (A. Sam Zaslavsky). That being said, the Respondent and his counsel (Sara Kun and Meysa Maleki) shall be kept informed at all times and engaged in the discussions to the extent necessary. If one or the other party has a potential buyer, they will immediately advise the other party through their counsel and both parties' agreement to any sale will be required.

10. The parties shall cooperate and through their matrimonial counsel take any and all actions required to preserve both the value and the ongoing operations of the existing businesses, and to the extent necessary, they shall seek advice from a corporate lawyer and/or any other professionals that may be required.

11. Both parties shall cooperate in showing the business premises, and providing any and all relevant documentation in their possession to any potential buyers of the business. Both parties shall be permitted to attend any viewing (or send a representative to attend the viewing on their behalf), or designate an agreed upon third party to show the premises to any potential buyers.

12. If necessary to preserve the businesses, the parties shall cooperate in obtaining emergency funding through the CERB. If any supporting documentation is required from an accountant for the purposes of obtaining emergency funding, the Respondent shall pay the accountant's fees upfront and the Applicant shall reimburse him for half the fees at a later date. To be clear, the parties shall be equally responsible for any and all accounting fees.

13. In the event that the businesses are sold, the balance of the net sale proceeds shall be held in trust by a lawyer acting for both parties on the sale, pending further agreement between the parties in writing or court Order. If the parties cannot agree on a counsel to hold the funds in trust, either party may bring a motion to have the issue determined by the court.

14. The balance of the relief sought by the Applicant in her Notice of Motion including her relief for contempt and spousal support shall be adjourned sine die and without prejudice to the Applicant's right to return to court on the motion at a later date if necessary. The Applicant shall provide reasonable notice to the Respondent and/or his counsel of at least two weeks before bringing her motion.

15. The parties shall schedule a Case Conference as early as possible and shall request that a case management judge be assigned to the case, if a case management judge has not already been assigned.

16. The provisions of the Order of Justice MacPherson, dated March 30, 2020 shall continue in full force and effect, except for the following parts of the Order, which the parties agree to vary on consent:

(a) paragraph [23] l) of the Order requiring the Respondent to immediately resume the depositing of all income from gym membership fees into RBC Account 00754-1003276 shall be amended as follows: When the businesses resume operations, all income from gym membership fees shall be deposited into the newly set up joint account referenced in paragraph 7 of this Offer to Settle;

(b) paragraph [23] 2) of the Order requiring the Respondent to transfer the deposits into RBC Account 00754-1003276 shall be amended as follows: The two cheques from the Toronto-Dominion Bank in the amount of $3,181.47 and in the amount of $1,724.26 received by the Respondent shall remain at the offices of the Respondent's solicitors and shall be deposited into the newly set up joint account referenced in paragraph 7 of this Offer to Settle once the account is open; and

(c) paragraph [23] 6) of the Order requiring the RBC Account 00754-1003276 to pay, on the first of every month commencing April 1, 2020 (i) $1,500 towards the rental of 21 Retreat Blvd., Woodbridge, (ii) $2,000 to the Applicant, and (iii) $2,000 to the Respondent, shall be amended in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Offer to Settle i.e. the Respondent will pay the uncharacterized amount(s) in accordance with the terms of those paragraph(s).

Analysis

The Respondent’s Cross-Motion

[21] The Respondent, in his motion, requests an extension of time to file his Answer.

[22] I am advised that the Respondent filed his Answer on September 24, 2020.

[23] The Applicant, understandably, was unaware that the Answer was filed. The Respondent filed a motion, without notice, requesting an extension to file his Answer. On July 21, 2020 Jarvis, J. declined the request, without prejudice to the Respondent to request the relief in the future, should there be service on the Applicant.

[24] On September 24, 2020 the Respondent was able to file his Answer although the details surrounding how he was able to do so are puzzling. Regardless, the Answer is filed.

[25] There shall be a Case Conference scheduled. The parties, after one year of litigating by motion, have not had the benefit of a Case Conference.

[26] My Ruling dated November 17, 2020 did not note the Respondent in default as alleged. Rather, it requested the Trial Coordinator to schedule an uncontested trial before me.

The Applicant’s Motion

Uncontested Trial

[27] March 10, 2021 was the date set for the uncontested trial. I decline to hear the uncontested trial as it is no longer uncontested as a result of the Respondent successfully filing his Answer.

Banking Records

[28] The Applicant requests an Order for third party banking records. The documents are not protected by privilege and they are very relevant to the issues in the file. The financial institutions have been served and have not provided any opposition.

Contempt

[29] The Applicant asks for an Order that the Respondent is in contempt.

[30] The Applicant states that the Respondent is in contempt of paragraphs #3 and #4 of my Order dated March 30, 2020.

[31] Paragraph # 3 of my March 30, 2020 order states: “Until the funds are transferred, as set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Order, the Respondent is deemed to be holding 2471345 Ontario Inc. and 2471333 Ontario Inc. in trust for the equal benefit of the Applicant.”

[32] Paragraph # 4 of my March 30, 2020 Order states: “The Respondent shall, forthwith, transfer the amount of $160,000 back into the parties’ joint bank account.”

[33] The Applicant also states that the Respondent is in breach of paragraphs #3, #4, and #7 of my Order dated April 24, 2020.

[34] Paragraph # 3 of my April 24, 2020 Order states:

“All of the businesses owned by one or both parties and without limitation the following businesses shall be preserved pending further agreement of the parties or Orders of the court: 2009110 Ontario Inc., 2455181 Ontario Inc., 2471345 Ontario Inc. and 247133 Ontario Inc. (hereinafter "the businesses").”

[35] Paragraph # 4 of my April 24, 2020 Order states:

“Neither party shall remove, transfer or dissipate in any manner whatsoever any funds in the accounts of the businesses, to the extent any funds remain. If any remaining funds are required to be removed for the day to day operations of the business or any and all other business-related expenses, consent of both parties is required in writing.”

[36] Paragraph 7 of my April 24, 2020 order states:

“The parties shall immediately open up a new account where all proceeds of the above-named businesses shall be deposited. Both parties shall have full access to the accounts, but no monies may be withdrawn or paid out of the account without the authorization of both parties, in writing. For clarity, this provision shall be good and sufficient authorization for any banking institution within Canada to deny any withdrawals from the account unless authorized by Alexander Babinets and Lyubov Babinets, in writing. If, however, any banking institution requires anything further from the parties to give effect to this paragraph of the Order, then both parties shall comply.”

Law and Analysis

[37] The first element of the test for contempt is that there must be a court Order to be enforced. Given that the fundamental purpose of the civil contempt remedy is to protect and enforce private rights, it is only available to redress breaches of Orders that are live and operative when the contempt finding is made, and which the aggrieved party wishes to enforce.

[38] I find there are two court Orders to be enforced and they are my Orders dated March 30, 2020 and April 24, 2020.

[39] The second requirement for a finding of contempt is that the Respondent must have had actual knowledge of the Order that he is alleged to have breached. I find that the Respondent had knowledge of the court Orders as he was present in court and represented by counsel on March 30, 2020 and he entered into a consent Order, while represented by counsel, on April 24, 2020.

[40] The third element of the test for contempt is that the Order alleged to have been breached must state clearly and unequivocally what should and should not be done. I find the Orders to be clear and unambiguous for the purposes of a contempt motion.

[41] The fourth element of the test is that the moving party must establish that the Respondent disobeyed the Order. I am satisfied that the Respondent has not complied with the court Orders.

[42] Finally, there must be a finding that the Respondent disobeyed the Order in a deliberate and wilful fashion. The court may decline to make a contempt finding even if there was non-compliance with the Order if the Respondent acted in good faith by taking all reasonable steps to comply with the Order.

[43] In addition to the substantive elements to the test for civil contempt as described above, there are notice requirements that must be satisfied. A Respondent must be given proper notice of the application for a contempt finding, including particulars of the alleged breaches clearly laid out so that they are made aware of the case to which they must respond. It is preferable that the full particulars of the alleged contempt be clearly set out in the Notice of Motion. It was clear from a review of the evidence that the Respondent had sufficient notice.

[44] The contempt power ultimately remains a matter for the court's discretion. Because of the seriousness and quasi-criminal nature of civil contempt, it must be used cautiously and with great restraint.

[45] However, pursuant to Rule 31 of the Family Law Rules, only an Order other than a payment Order, may be enforced by a contempt motion. Orders that require the Respondent to pay money to the Applicant may not be enforced by contempt proceedings.

Paragraph # 3 of my March 30, 2020 Order

[46] Paragraph # 3 of my March 30, 2020 Order states: “Until the funds are transferred, as set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Order, the Respondent is deemed to be holding 2471345 Ontario Inc. and 2471333 Ontario Inc. in trust for the equal benefit of the Applicant.”

[47] This clause of my Order requires no action to do something and no action is required to cease from doing something. This clause of the Order is a declaratory statement. Accordingly, I do not find the Respondent in contempt of this portion of the Order.

Paragraph # 4 of my March 30, 2020 Order

[48] Paragraph # 4 of my March 30, 2020 Order states: “The Respondent shall, forthwith, transfer the amount of $160,000 back into the parties’ joint bank account.”

[49] Although invited by the Applicant to consider this a “transfer” and not a “payment”, I fail to appreciate the distinction.

[50] This paragraph of the Order, in my view, is an Order for the Respondent to pay money to the Applicant by depositing it in their joint account. The Respondent is in breach of this Order but he cannot be found in contempt because it is an Order for the payment of money.

Paragraph # 3 of my April 24, 2020 Order

[51] Paragraph # 3 of my April 24, 2020 Order states:

“All of the businesses owned by one or both parties and without limitation the following businesses shall be preserved pending further agreement of the parties or Orders of the court: 2009110 Ontario Inc., 2455181 Ontario Inc., 2471345 Ontario Inc. and 247133 Ontario Inc. (hereinafter "the businesses").”

[52] The Respondent states that by mid-April 2020 there were no revenues from either of the two clubs because of Covid-19.

[53] With respect to the Woodbridge location, the landlord provided notice in or about the end of May 2020 that the doors would be locked as a result of non-payment of rent.

[54] The Respondent did re-open the Scarborough club, briefly, in the summer of 2020. The club was not open consistently, memberships were frozen, and the Respondent states that he was locked out of the club by the landlord for failure to pay the rent.

[55] I cannot conclude that the Respondent disobeyed this clause of the Order in a deliberate and wilful fashion. The businesses were shuttered for much of 2020 as a result of Covid-19. With little to no income, as a result of government enforced closures, I cannot conclude, on the evidence before me, that the Respondent deliberately failed to preserve the business.

Paragraph # 4 of my April 24, 2020 Order

[56] Paragraph # 4 of my April 24, 2020 Order states:

“Neither party shall remove, transfer or dissipate in any manner whatsoever any funds in the accounts of the businesses, to the extent any funds remain. If any remaining funds are required to be removed for the day to day operations of the business or any and all other business related expenses, consent of both parties is required in writing.”

[57] I cannot conclude that the Respondent disobeyed this clause of the Order in a deliberate and wilful fashion. As stated, the businesses were shuttered for much of 2020 as a result of Covid-19. The landlords of both premises locked the parties out in 2020.

[58] With little to no income, as a result of government enforced closures, I cannot conclude, on the evidence before me, that the Respondent deliberately transferred resources after the April 24, 2020 Order.

Paragraph # 7 of my April 24, 2020 Order

[59] Paragraph 7 of my April 24, 2020 Order states:

“The parties shall immediately open up a new account where all proceeds of the above named businesses shall be deposited. Both parties shall have full access to the accounts, but no monies may be withdrawn or paid out of the account without the authorization of both parties, in writing. For clarity, this provision shall be good and sufficient authorization for any banking institution within Canada to deny any withdrawals from the account unless authorized by Alexander Babinets and Lyubov Babinets, in writing. If, however, any banking institution requires anything further from the parties to give effect to this paragraph of the Order, then both parties shall comply.”

[60] I am not persuaded, on the evidence before me, that the Respondent deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the Order. The Respondent states that the Applicant did not attend at the bank to open the account. The Applicant states that the Respondent did not attend. It is not possible for me, on this motion, without viva voce evidence and cross-examination, to determine credibility.

Other

[61] Although the Respondent is not in contempt of the court Orders, he is in breach of certain clauses of the court Orders.

[62] The Respondent did not transfer the amount of $160,000 back into the parties’ joint bank account as ordered on March 30, 2020.

[63] It is noteworthy that Ms. Yulia Shikan deposed an affidavit sworn November 2, 2020. She indicates that she was in a relationship with the Respondent from April 2020 through mid-July 2020. She states that in March 2020, when the Respondent was leaving the country, he asked her to look after a large bag of money for safekeeping.

[64] The Respondent did not pay, on the first of every month, $2,000 per month to the Applicant as ordered on March 30, 2020.

[65] The Respondent did not make a $6,000 uncharacterized payment to the Applicant by July 1, 2020 as ordered on April 24, 2020.

[66] A new account was not set up as ordered on April 24, 2020. The Respondent states that the Applicant did not attend at the bank to open the account. The Applicant states that the Respondent did not attend.

[67] The Respondent did not appeal the Orders and he did not seek to vary the Orders. He simply elected not to follow them.

[68] It is noteworthy that the court record discloses that the Respondent avoided service of the motion for contempt, requiring the Applicant to bring a 14B motion, successfully, to permit service by email.

Failure to Obey an Order

[69] Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, as amended, sets out the types of relief that a court may grant if a person fails to obey an Order in the case. That Rule provides as follows:

FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER

(8) If a person fails to obey an order in a case or a related case, the court may deal with the failure by making any order that it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter, including,

(a) an order for costs;

(b) an order dismissing a claim;

(c) an order striking out any application, answer, notice of motion, motion to change, response to motion to change, financial statement, affidavit, or any other document filed by a party;

(d) an order that all or part of a document that was required to be provided but was not, may not be used in the case;

(e) if the failure to obey was by a party, an order that the party is not entitled to any further order from the court unless the court orders otherwise;

(f) an order postponing the trial or any other step in the case; and

(g) on motion, a contempt order.

[70] His attempts to evade service are, no doubt, designed to frustrate the Applicant.

[71] It is noteworthy that the Respondent was fined by authorities for opening and running his business during periods the government issued mandatory closures.

[72] Court Orders are not suggestions. The Respondent’s blatant disregard for the court Orders is obvious.

[73] The requirement to follow court orders applies to both litigants. When a litigant refuses to follows the rules of court including compliance with court orders, they are at risk, like here, of not being eligible to continue their litigation.

[74] It is likely that the only significant and remaining asset in the case is the $160,000 removed from the parties’ savings by the Respondent.

Order

1. The Trial Coordinator shall schedule an urgent Case Conference.

2. The Respondent shall, within 30 days, transfer $160,000 to the Applicant’s solicitor, in Trust. The funds shall remain in trust pending further court Order or agreement.

3. Should the Respondent fail to transfer $160,000 to the Applicant’s solicitor’s Trust account within 30 days, his Answer shall be struck and the Applicant may proceed by way of uncontested trial before me.

4. The CIBC Bank and any CIBC affiliates and/or subsidiaries., and any authorized employee/officer/agent of CIBC Bank or CIBC affiliates., shall provide full account histories, statements and disclosure to the Applicant (Lyubov Babinets) or her counsel (A. Sam Zaslavsky), with respect to any accounts/credit accounts held in the name of the Respondent (Alexander Babinets), which he may hold solely or jointly with any other third party, or 2455181 Ontario Inc., 2471333 Ontario Inc., and 2471345 Ontario Inc (“TD Express Fitness Scarborough”), and shall preserve/freeze any such accounts/credit accounts/investments if a court Order is made in this matter granting such relief.

5. The RBC Bank and any affiliates and/or subsidiaries., and any authorized employee/officer/agent of RBC Bank, shall provide full account histories, statements and disclosure to the Applicant (Lyubov Babinets) or her counsel (A. Sam Zaslavsky), with respect to any accounts/credit accounts held in the name of the Respondent (Alexander Babinets), which he may hold solely or jointly with any other third party, or 2455181 Ontario Inc., 2471333 Ontario Inc., and 2471345 Ontario Inc (“TD Express Fitness Scarborough”), and shall preserve/freeze any such accounts/credit accounts/investments if a court Order is made in this matter granting such relief.

6. The Bank of Montreal and any affiliates and/or subsidiaries, and any authorized employee/officer/agent of the Bank of Montreal, shall provide full account histories, statements and disclosure to the Applicant (Lyubov Babinets) or her counsel (A. Sam Zaslavsky), with respect to any accounts/credit accounts held in the name of the Respondent (Alexander Babinets), which he may hold solely or jointly with any other third party, or 2455181 Ontario Inc., 2471333 Ontario Inc., and 2471345 Ontario Inc (“TD Express Fitness Scarborough”), and shall preserve/freeze any such accounts/credit accounts/investments if a court Order is made in this matter granting such relief.

7. The Scotiabank and any affiliates and/or subsidiaries, and any authorized employee/officer/agent of Scotiabank Bank, shall provide full account histories, statements and disclosure to the Applicant (Lyubov Babinets) or her counsel (A. Sam Zaslavsky), with respect to any accounts/credit accounts held in the name of the Respondent (Alexander Babinets), which he may hold solely or jointly with any other third party, or 2455181 Ontario Inc., 2471333 Ontario Inc., and 2471345 Ontario Inc (“TD Express Fitness Scarborough”), and shall preserve/freeze any such accounts/credit accounts/investments if a court Order is made in this matter granting such relief.

8. The TD Bank and any affiliates and/or subsidiaries, and any authorized employee/officer/agent of TD Bank, shall provide full account histories, statements and disclosure to the Applicant (Lyubov Babinets) or her counsel (A. Sam Zaslavsky), with respect to any accounts/credit accounts held in the name of the Respondent (Alexander Babinets), which he may hold solely or jointly with any other third party, or 2455181 Ontario Inc., 2471333 Ontario Inc., and 2471345 Ontario Inc (“TD Express Fitness Scarborough”), and shall preserve/freeze any such accounts/credit accounts/investments if a court Order is made in this matter granting such relief.

9. The Respondent’s cross-motion is dismissed.

10. The Applicant’s request for a final Order is dismissed.

11. The Applicant’s request for spousal support was not argued and it is not ordered at this time.

12. If the parties cannot agree on the issue of costs, I shall consider the request for costs. The Applicant shall serve on the Respondent her written submissions, limited to three pages, exclusive of the Bill of Costs and Offers to Settle within 20 days of the date of this decision. The Respondent shall serve on the Applicant his written submissions, limited to three pages, exclusive of the Bill of Costs and Offers to Settle within 15 days thereafter. There shall be no right of reply. The parties may file their submissions on costs electronically through the Trial Coordinator’s Office at: Newmarket.SCJ.TC.ontario.ca.

Justice G.A. MacPherson

Date: March 22, 2021