Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-18-002609-0001 DATE: 2022-08-04 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Natalia Prokopovych, Applicant AND: Rostyslav Prokopovych, Respondent

BEFORE: M. Kraft, J.

COUNSEL: Ruth D. Richards, for the Applicant Respondent, in person

HEARD: August 4, 2022

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This is a motion brought, within a Motion to Change, by the respondent (“husband”) for financial disclosure from the applicant (“wife”). In particular, the husband seeks that the wife provide copies of the following bank and credit card statements for the period December 1, 2018 to the current date:

a. TD Bank, account ending with #403;

b. Td Bank, account ending with #236;

c. TD Bank, account ending with #713;

d. TD Bank, account ending with #130 (for this account statements from May 2021 to the current date)

e. Information about where the wife transferred the sum of $53,129.32 from TD Bank account ending #130 on December 11, 2018;

f. TD credit card account ending #7061

g. Privat bank account (Ukraine) ending with #9431;

h. Privat bank account (Ukraine) ending with #8083; and

i. Privat bank account (Ukraine) ending with #3274.

[2] In addition, the husband seeks an order that the wife provide him with affidavit evidence confirming that Anna Chaplynskaya, a third party with whom the wife and her counsel shared information about this case and his financial/personal information, had a legal right to this information.

[3] The wife seeks to dismiss the husband’s motion with costs on the grounds that (a) she has already produced a significant amount of relevant and material financial disclosure; (b) the financial production being requested is irrelevant to issues arising from the husband’s Motion to Change, amounts to a fishing expedition and is intended to exert financial control over the wife; and (c) the husband’s Motion to Change has been set down for August 16, 2022 and once the husband filed his evidence for this hearing, he is no longer permitted to bring a motion for disclosure without leave of the court.

Issues to be determined on the Motion

[4] The issues to be determined on the motion are as follows:

a. Did the husband require leave of the court prior to bringing his motion for financial disclosure given that the Motion to Change has been scheduled and the parties have served and filed the evidence on which they each intend to rely?

b. If the answer to (a) above is no, is the disclosure being sought by the husband relevant to the issues on his Motion to Change and, if so, is the wife required to produce all that is being sought?

[5] I find that that the husband ought to have sought leave of the court or directions from the court prior to bringing his motion for financial disclosure given that the Motion to Change has been scheduled for August 16, 2022 and the evidence on which each party intends to rely has been served and filed. Accordingly, there is no need to determine whether the disclosure being sought by the husband is relevant and/or ought to be produced by the wife. However, even if I am incorrect that the husband requires leave of the court to bring this motion, I find that the disclosure sought by the husband has already been produced by the wife and/or is not relevant to the issues on his Motion to Change. The reasons for my order are below.

Background:

[6] The parties began a common law relationship in Ukraine in December 1995. They have one child, O., who is currently 22 years of age. The parties became married on December 24, 2005 in Ukraine. They separated on January 1, 2018.

[7] In 2005, the husband moved to Canada to build his career. The wife and O. remained in Ukraine. The husband sent money to the wife monthly from Canada to assist in supporting her and the child. The wife worked as a Manager in Ukraine.

[8] In 2009 the husband sponsored the wife and O. to come to Canada. The wife and O. relocated to Canada in 2010.

[9] The wife deposes that the husband was abusive toward her psychologically and financially controlling. The wife decided to separate on January 1, 2018.

Litigation History

[10] On May 23, 2018, the wife issued this Application seeking a divorce, an equalization of net family property and spousal support.

[11] At a case conference, the parties settled their outstanding issues by way of a separation agreement which was ultimately incorporated into the order of Paisley, J., dated November 28, 2018. The order was not issued until February 21, 2019.

[12] The significant terms of the separation agreement are:

a. the wife was to receive the sum of $96,287.98 by December 8, 2018 as an equalization payment (which the wife acknowledged was less than her full entitlement to an equalization of the parties’ net family property as at the date of separation);

b. the husband was to pay the wife $1,000 a month in spousal support for a fixed period of 10 years namely, from February 1, 2018 to February 1, 2028 (the SSAGs suggested a much higher figure for spousal support for an indefinite period);

c. the spousal support was to be adjusted if there was a drop in the husband’s employment income of more than 15%;

d. spousal support may be changed if there was a material change in circumstances in either party’s financial position; the wife remarried; or the wife cohabited with another person in a relationship resembling marriage for more than 3 years; and

e. the wife was to receive 1/3 of the Aeroplan points, being 111,0542 points.

[13] On November 28, 2018, the wife received the agreed-upon equalization payment of $96,287.98.

[14] Sometime in December 2018, the wife returned to Ukraine to assist her elderly and ailing parents. She remained in Ukraine until February 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine. Between February 2022 and May 2022, the wife lived in a bomb shelter until she was able to flee Kharkiv. The husband remained in Toronto with O.

[15] Sometime in January 2019, the wife obtained a job at a school in Kharkiv, Ukraine. The wife travelled to Canada twice in 2019 and in 2021.

[16] The husband deposes that he did not know that the wife had returned to Ukraine until June 12, 2020, when the parties exchanged disclosure for 2019 and the wife sent him her notice of assessment.

Motion to Change brought by the husband in the OCJ

[17] Once he learned that the wife moved to Ukraine, the husband sought to negotiate a reduction in spousal support. He claims that the material change in circumstances is the wife’s move to Ukraine which resulted in her having a much lower cost of living than she would have had if she remained in Canada, thereby justifying a reduction in his spousal support obligation, on the basis that the wife would need less spousal support from him.

[18] On October 19, 2020, the husband brought a Motion to Change the terms of the separation agreement. The court rejected the Motion to Change and directed the husband to the Ontario Court of Justice (“OCJ”) since he sought to change the terms of a separation agreement.

[19] In November 2020, the husband brought a Motion to Change in the OCJ, which was issued on November 9, 2020, court file number DFO 20-15613.

[20] On January 6, 2021, the husband served a Request for Information (“RFI”) on the wife, seeking disclosure of her bank accounts and credit card statements from all active and closed accounts, and statements for all mortgages, lines of credit, or other loans from a bank, trust or financial company from December 1, 2018 onward (when she returned to Ukraine).

[21] Justice Pawagi of the OCJ conducted two case conferences on March 26, 2021 and May 19, 2021, as follows:

a. On March 26, 2021, Pawagi, J. made an order, on consent, that by April 26, 2020, the wife would produce her bank and credit card statements for all active and closed accounts and cards in her name or jointly; statements for any mortgages, lines of credit or loans from bank or other; statement of investments, savings and/or property for 2019, 2020 and 2021; and

b. On May 19, 2021, Pawagi, J. dismissed the OCJ case without costs and the husband had to return to this court in order to bring a Motion to Change the Paisley order. On May 13, 2021, the wife had brought it to the attention of the OCJ that the terms of the parties’ separation agreement had been incorporated into an order of Paisley, J., dated November 28, 2018. The husband deposes that he never received a copy of the court order from the wife or the court.

[22] In accordance with March 26, 2021 order of Pawagi, J., on May 4, 2021 and May 13, 2021, the wife provided a disclosure brief to the husband. Although the wife produced copies of her bank statements for a TD account, ending #4130; and three Ukrainian bank accounts, ending #9431, #8083 and #3274, the husband deposes that she did not disclose all of the bank accounts and/or credit card statements in her name, active or closed, from 2019 to 2021.

[23] On May 24, 2021, the husband deposes that he attempted to negotiate a reduction in his spousal support obligation based on the material change in the wife’s financial position for the better once she relocated to Ukraine. The wife did not agree that her move to Ukraine was a material change justifying a reduction in her spousal support. At this time, the husband demanded that the wife provide proof that Anna Chaplynskaya had a legal right to receive information about this case and about him personally and legally since he had discovered the wife had copied information to Ms. Chaplynskaya.

[24] The wife has relied on Ms. Chaplynskaya as a support person during this litigation. According to the wife, she has given Ms. Chaplynskaya authority to deal with matters in her absence, particularly since the wife was in the Ukraine dealing with the husband’s Motion to Change and Ms. Chaplynskaya was in Canada. Further, Ms. Chaplynskaya attends all court attendances with the wife given that her command of English language is not sufficient.

Motion to Change brought by the husband in the SCJ

[25] The husband brought this Motion to Change the Paisley order in the SCJ. On January 12, 2022 the parties attended a case conference before Pinto, J., at which he advised the parties to complete any outstanding disclosure and, he indicated that if the parties are unable to resolve the matter, they were to return it at a Settlement Conference, which he scheduled for April 1, 2022. No order was made for either party to produce financial disclosure at this conference. The wife was in Ukraine for this conference.

[26] On April 1, 2022, the parties attended a Settlement Conference before Lococo, J., at which he set down the hearing of the Motion to Change for August 16, 2022 as a long motion by affidavit evidence. In addition, a timetable was scheduled for the exchange of the evidence needed for the motion. In his Endorsement, Lococo, J states:

“The parties discussed disclosure and other outstanding issues, without resolution. No further disclosure was ordered.”

[27] On April 7, 2022, the husband served another RFI on the wife, seeking disclosure of a) the wife’s TD bank accounts ending with 403;236;713;130; b) details as to where the wife transferred $53,129.32 on December 11, 2018 (from the EP she received); c) TD credit card statements for account ending #7061; d) Ukraine Privat bank accounts ending with 9431; 8083; and 3274; and e) a copy of the power of attorney made by the wife to Ms. Chaplynskaya. Essentially, this motion is for the disclosure the husband sought in his April 7, 2022 RFI.

[28] The husband delivered all of the affidavit evidence on which he intends to rely for the Motion to Change two weeks before the scheduled time (June 16, 2022). The wife has also delivered her affidavit evidence on which she intends to rely. Pursuant to the order of Lococo, J., dated April 1, 2022, both parties are to serve and file Facta by August 9, 2022.

[29] On July 7, 2022, the husband served the wife with his Notice of Motion, dated July 6, 2022, affidavit, sworn on July 6, 2022; his Factum, dated July 6, 2022 and his draft court order. The husband scheduled this motion for disclosure 12 days prior to the hearing of the Motion to Change.

[30] The husband’s position is that he requires the financial disclosure set out above because to determine the wife’s true income and financial position, he needs to have copies of her bank statements and credit card statements from when she relocated to Ukraine in December 2018 until the current date to prove there has been a material change in her financial circumstances justifying a reduction in his spousal support obligation.

[31] According to the wife, she has thus far produced significant financial information including:

a. Income tax returns for 2019, 2020 and 2021;

b. Notices of Assessment for 2017, 2018, 2019;

c. Translated and notarized wage and tax statements from Ukraine for the years 2019 and 2020 (the period of time she worked in Ukraine);

d. Taxpayer’s Notice from State Registrar (Ukraine equivalent of a Canadian income tax return);

e. State Register of property rights to Real Estate (Ukraine);

f. Lease agreement to Kharkiv City property and meter readings;

g. Copies of her bank account statements for TD account ending in #4130 from January 1, 2018 to May 4, 2021;

h. Copies of her gold card credit card statement for the period January 1, 2018 to May 4, 2021;

i. Copies of her universal gold card credit card statement for the period January 1, 2018 to May 4, 2021;

j. A copy of her RBC life insurance policy;

k. Her Taxpayers Notice from State Register in Ukraine;

l. The State register of property rights to real estate;

m. And the Lease Agreement to Kharkiv City property and meter readings for where she lived in the Ukraine.

n. A complete Equifax credit report as of July 8, 2022 which lists all secured and unsecured loans in her name; all bank accounts in her name and all credit cards in her name; and

o. TD credit card statements for June 2020 (the last time it was used) and May 2022 (the most recent time it was used since June 2020);

Issue One: Did the husband require leave of the court to bring this disclosure motion?

[32] Rule 1(7) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (“FLRs”) states that “if these rules do not cover a matter adequately, the court may give directions, and the practice shall be decided by analogy to these rules by reference to the Courts of Justice Act and the Act governing the case, and if the court considers it appropriate by reference to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

[33] The wife submits that the husband’s motion for financial disclosure is a violation of r. 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that once a party has set an action down for trial, he/she shall not initiate any motion or form of discovery without leave of the court.

[34] Specifically, rule 48.04(1) states as follows:

48.04 (1) Subject to subrule (3), a party who has set an action down for trial shall not initiate or continue any motion or form of discovery without leave of the court. O. Reg. 343/21, s. 1.

(2) Subrule (1) does not,

(a) relieve a party from complying with undertakings given by the party on an examination for discovery;

(b) relieve a party from any obligation imposed by,

(0.i) rule 29.1.03 (requirement for discovery plan),

(i) rule 30.07 (disclosure of documents or errors subsequently discovered),

(ii) rule 30.09 (abandonment of claim of privilege),

(iii) rule 31.07 (failure to answer on discovery),

(iv) rule 31.09 (disclosure of information subsequently obtained),

(v) rule 51.03 (duty to respond to request to admit),

(vi) rule 53.03 (service of report of expert witness); or

(vii) Revoked: O. Reg. 131/04, s. 13.

(c) preclude a party from resorting to rule 51.02 (request to admit facts or documents). R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 48.04 (2); O. Reg. 131/04, s. 13; O. Reg. 260/05, s. 10; O. Reg. 438/08, s. 43.

(3) Leave of the court is not required for a motion to compel compliance with any obligation imposed by a rule listed in clause (2) (b). O. Reg. 436/10, s. 1 (2).

[35] Rule 15 of the FLRs governs Motions to Change in this court. Specifically, this rule sets out the procedure to bring a Motion to Change and to respond to a Motion to Change.

[36] Rule 15(24.1) explains the procedure at a first attendance before a judge on a Motion to Change. Specifically, it states,

Duties of judge at first attendance

(24.1) Unless a motion to change a final order or agreement proceeds on the consent of the parties and any assignee or is unopposed, at the first attendance of the parties before a judge, the judge shall,

(a) if that first attendance is a case conference or settlement conference, make a determination under clause 17 (4) (j) or 17 (5) (i), respectively; and

(b) if that first attendance is not a case conference or settlement conference,

(i) determine the next step in the motion, with a view to ensuring that the motion proceeds in the most efficient manner appropriate in the circumstances, and

(ii) if possible in the circumstances, determine the most appropriate process for reaching a quick and just conclusion of the motion. O. Reg. 781/21, s. 6 (1).

[37] In the case at bar, the first attendance was a case conference before Pinto, J. on January 12, 2020.

[38] The reference to r.17(4) and (5) is the Rule that deals with conferences. Specifically, Rule 17(4) and (5) provides as follows:

Purposes of case conference

(4) The purposes of a case conference include,

(a) exploring the chances of settling the case;

(b) identifying the issues that are in dispute and those that are not in dispute;

(c) exploring ways to resolve the issues that are in dispute;

(d) ensuring disclosure of the relevant evidence, including the disclosure of financial information required to resolve any support or property issue;

(d.1) identifying any issues relating to any expert evidence or reports on which the parties intend to rely at trial;

(e) noting admissions that may simplify the case;

(f) setting the date for the next step in the case;

(g) setting a specific timetable for the steps to be taken in the case before it comes to trial;

(h) organizing a settlement conference, or holding one if appropriate;

(i) giving directions with respect to any intended motion, including the preparation of a specific timetable for the exchange of material for the motion and ordering the filing of summaries of argument, if appropriate; and

(j) in the case of a motion to change a final order or agreement under rule 15, determining the most appropriate process for reaching a quick and just conclusion of the motion. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 17 (4); O. Reg. 89/04, s. 8 (1); O. Reg. 6/10, s. 7 (1, 2); O. Reg. 522/21, s. 6 (1); O. Reg. 781/21, s. 7 (1).

Purposes of settlement conference

(5) The purposes of a settlement conference include,

(a) exploring the chances of settling the case;

(b) settling or narrowing the issues in dispute;

(c) ensuring disclosure of the relevant evidence;

(c.1) settling or narrowing any issues relating to any expert evidence or reports on which the parties intend to rely at trial;

(d) noting admissions that may simplify the case;

(e) if possible, obtaining a view of how the court might decide the case;

(f) considering any other matter that may help in a quick and just conclusion of the case;

(g) if the case is not settled, identifying the witnesses and other evidence to be presented at trial, estimating the time needed for trial and scheduling the case for trial;

(h) organizing a trial management conference, or holding one if appropriate; and

(i) in the case of a motion to change a final order or agreement under rule 15, determining the most appropriate process for reaching a quick and just conclusion of the motion. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 17 (5); O. Reg. 6/10, s. 7 (3); O. Reg. 781/21, s. 7 (3).

[39] At the case conference, Pinto, J. recognized that the parties did not agree on the financial disclosure issues. Pursuant to r.17(4)(d), it was within the court’s jurisdiction to ensure that the disclosure of the relevant evidence, including the disclosure of financial information required to resolve any support or property issue was made. Pinto, J., however, declined to order the wife to produce the financial disclosure the husband sought. Instead, he advised the parties to reach agreement, failing which they were to address the disclosure issue at the Settlement Conference on April 1, 2022.

[40] Similarly, at the Settlement Conference on April 1, 2022, Lococo, J. discussed the disclosure issues with the parties, noting that the parties did not reach a resolution about the issues. Notwithstanding this, Lococo, J. declined to make a disclosure order. Instead, he determined the most appropriate process of reaching a quick and just conclusion of the motion, pursuant to r.17(5)(i) and set a hearing date for the Motion to Change for August 16, 2022, to be conducted as a long motion in writing.

[41] Since there is no similar rule in the FLRs regarding the consequences of “setting down” a matter to trial, or in this case a Motion to Change, I find that rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure is applicable to the facts of this case.

[42] In this case, the date for the Motion to Change was set at a Settlement Conference and the parties agreed to a timetable for the delivery of their affidavit evidence necessary for the Motion to Change. Accordingly, if the husband wished to bring a motion for further financial disclosure from the wife, he ought to have sought leave to do so from the court.

[43] I find that it is clear from the Endorsement of Lococo, J. that he was aware that the husband sought more disclosure from the wife and the wife believed she had provided him with sufficient disclosure. If Lococo, J. believed that the husband was entitled to this disclosure or that he ought to be able to have a disclosure motion heard, he could have scheduled a motion date, prior the hearing of the Motion to Change. He did not do so. Instead, the Motion to Change was set down.

[44] Even if I am incorrect that rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply to Motions to Change in a family law proceeding, I find that the husband ought to have sought directions from the court prior to brining his motion for financial disclosure pursuant to the FLRs. The husband was aware of the timetable for the exchange of affidavit evidence when he scheduled the motion for disclosure today, only 12 days before the Motion to Change is scheduled to be heard. Rule 15(26.1) of the FLRs, the rule which governs Motions to Change in a family law proceeding, provides that a party could bring a motion for directions on how to carry on the case, and any such motion may be made in Form 14B.

[45] Given that the parties had had both a case conference and settlement conference and the issue of disclosure and the dispute between the parties with respect to disclosure had been conferenced twice by judges of this court, I find that once Lococo, J. set the date for the Motion to Change, the husband ought to have sought leave of the court to bring the within disclosure motion pursuant to rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and/or brought a motion for directions under r.15(26) to address this matter. He did not do so and, on this basis, his motion for financial disclosure is dismissed.

[46] Given this finding, it is not necessary for me to consider whether the financial disclosure sought by the husband is relevant to the issues on the Motion to Change and/or whether the wife ought to be obliged to produce the disclosure. However, even if I am incorrect about the need for the husband to have sought leave or directions from the court to bring the motion, I find that the wife has provided sufficient financial disclosure to the husband and that the additional disclosure the husband seeks is not relevant to the issues on his Motion to Change.

Issue Two: Is the Financial Disclosure sought by the husband relevant to the issues on the Motion to Change?

[47] Based on the record before me, I am persuaded that the wife has produced the financial disclosure requested by the husband within her power and control. Following the order of disclosure requested by the husband in his Notice of Motion at paragraph 1, I make this finding for the following reasons:

a. The husband seeks copies of the wife’s bank account statements for the TD account ending in #4130 from 2018 to present. On May 4, 2021, the wife produced copies of these bank statements from 2018 to May 2021, by producing copies of the Account Activity – Historical Details. These statements are attached as Exhibit “E” to the husband’s affidavit, sworn on July 6, 2022;

b. The husband seeks copies of the wife’s bank statements from TD accounts ending in #236 and #713 for 2018, 2019 and 2021. At first, counsel for the wife submitted that these accounts are not in the name of the wife but, rather, belong to Anna Chaplynskaya. However, during the husband’s submissions he referred to Exhibit “D” to his affidavit, sworn on July 6, 2020, which demonstrates that the account ending in #2236 was a TFSA account in the wife’s name with a balance $40.71 on November 17, 2017 and the account ending in #713 was a GIC account in the wife’s name with a $0 balance as of November 17, 2017. The wife deposes that there are no account statements for either of these two investment accounts as she closed both accounts. The husband has no evidence to the contrary. Given the minimal balances in these two accounts, the fact that the wife returned to the Ukraine in December 2018; and the Equifax credit report, dated July 8, 2022, which does not list either of these two bank accounts for the wife, I am persuaded that the there is no further financial disclosure for the wife to produce in connection with either account that existed in 2018, 2019 and 2021.

c. The husband seeks copies of the wife’s bank statements from TD account ending in #130 from May 2021 to the current date. The wife deposes she produced this information up to May 2021 and there are no statements beyond May 2021 as the account is not active. There is no evidence to the contrary on the record. I am persuaded that there are no further statements for the wife to produce with respect to this account.

d. The husband seeks information as to where the withdrawal made by the wife in the sum of $53,129.32 was deposited which she withdrew from her TD account #4130 on December 11, 2018. She has not produced this information on the basis that it is not relevant to the issues on the Motion to Change. I agree with the wife. The wife received her equalization payment from the husband as a deposit into this account on November 28, 2018. This was her property settlement. Where she deposited a portion of these funds two weeks later has no bearing on whether there has been a material change in her circumstances justifying a reduction in the husband’s spousal support obligation.

e. The husband seeks copies of the wife’s TD credit card statements for account ending #7061. The wife deposes that there are no such credit card statements, since this account is not active and statements are not generated for credit cards that are not active. Given that the Equifax credit report, dated July 8, 2022, does not list this TD credit card for the wife, I am persuaded that there is no further financial disclosure for the wife to produce in connection with this credit card.

f. The husband seeks copies of the wife’s bank account statements for her Ukraine Privat account ending in #9431. On May 4, 2021, the wife produced copies of these account statements for 2019, 2020 and 2021;

g. The husband seeks copies of the wife’s bank account statements for her Ukraine Privat account ending in #8083. On May 4, 2021, the wife produced copies of these account statements for 2019, 2020 and 2021;

h. The husband seeks copies of the wife’s bank account statements for her Ukraine Privat account ending in #3274. On May 4, 2021, the wife produced copies of these account statements for 2021 until May 13, 2022. The wife deposes this account did not exist in 2018 and 2019; and

i. The husband seeks an order requiring the wife and her counsel to provide an affidavit to demonstrate that on May 29, 2021, the wife and her counsel had a legal right to share information about this litigation and the husband’s personal and financial information to Ms. Anna Chaplynskaya. I do not find that this relief is relevant or material to the issues on the Motion to Change. Further, given the wife’s circumstances, the fact that she was living in Ukraine, followed by a four-month period in a bomb shelter between February 2022 and May 2022, she required the assistance of Ms. Chaplynskaya in Canada to assist her with this litigation, a fact which is clear given that she assists the wife with translation and provides support. In any event, the wife deposes that she has given Ms. Chaplynskaya a power of attorney and authority to deal with her matters and there is no contradictory evidence on the record to suggest this is not the case.

ORDER

[48] Accordingly, this court makes the following order:

a. The husband’s motion is hereby dismissed;

b. None of the timelines set out in the order of Lococo, J., dated April 1, 2022 are changed. The parties are to serve and file their Facta for the Motion to Change on August 6, 2022;

c. The Motion to Change scheduled as a long motion on August 16, 2022 shall proceed as scheduled.

d. The parties are encouraged to work out the costs of this motion. If they are unable to do so by August 9, 2022, the issue of the costs of today’s attendance shall be determined by the judge hearing the Motion to Change. Both parties shall serve and file written costs submissions in connection with this disclosure motion of no more than two written pages, not including a Bill of Costs or Offers to Settle by August 10, 2022 and upload same onto Caselines.

August 4, 2022 M. Kraft, J.

COURT FILE NO.: FS-18-002609-0001

DATE: 2022-08-04

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Natalia Prokopovych

Applicant

AND:

Rostyslav Prokopovych

Respondent

ENDORSEMENT

M. Kraft, J.

Released: August 4, 2022