CITATION: Dubovitsky v. Dubovitska, 2026 ONSC 3051

COURT FILE NO.: FC-24-428

DATE: 2026/05/25

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Yuri Dubovitsky, Applicant

AND

Tatiana Dubovitska, Respondent

COUNSEL: Self-represented Applicant

Altynay Teshabaeva for the Respondent

Cheryl Hess, OCL for the children

HEARD: November 24 - 27, 2025

Reasons for Decision

ENGELKING. J.

1The Applicant, Yuri, commenced his application in December of 2023 seeking an order for divorce; sole decision-making responsibility over and primary residence of the two children of the marriage, with specified parenting time for the Respondent, Tatiana; child support and section 7 expense contributions from Tatiana; and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home pending its sale.

2In her Answer, Tatiana sought an order for divorce, parenting time with the children, decision-making authority over them, support for the children and for herself, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and its contents, and equalization of the parties’ net family properties.

3For the reasons that follow, there will be an order for a divorce, joint decision making responsibility with final authority resting with Yuri, specified parenting time for Tatiana, retroactive and ongoing child support payable by Tatiana for the children from December 1, 2022, retroactive and ongoing mid-range spousal support payable by Yuri for an indefinite period from December 1, 2022, ongoing s. 7 expense contributions on a proportionate basis, an equalization payment payable by Yuri to Tatiana of $46,000, along with the return of certain household items, and for sale of the matrimonial home.

Background Facts

4The parties married on June 12, 1999. Two children were born of the marriage, LD in June of 2009, now 16, soon to be 17, and MD in June of 2014, now 11, soon to be 12.

5The parties are from Ukraine and came to Canada in 2004, originally to Montreal. In 2006, they moved to Ottawa where Yuri secured employment.

6Tatiana’s evidence was that she was the primary caregiver for the children during the marriage, while Yuri was the main breadwinner. It is uncontroverted that although she worked at times, Tatiana took a year of maternity leave after each child’s birth, and that she further remained at home as a stay-at-home mother from 2019 to 2022, returning to work in April of 2022. Tatiana’s description of the relationship was very much as a “traditional marriage”, where she was responsible for the home and the children, regardless of whether she was working, and Yuri was responsible for the family’s financial needs.

7While Yuri acknowledges that he was the main breadwinner of the family, his evidence was that they were both responsible for the children and shared in their care. He does not accept Tatiana’s characterization of herself as their primary caregiver. Rather, he indicated that they both worked, and they both cared for the children and the home, though they may have taken on different responsibilities in so doing.

8Tatiana’s evidence is that Yuri has a temper and can fly into a rage very quickly. She testified as to various incidents of domestic violence. These included Yuri kicking in a door, throwing her on a bed and punching a pillow hard near her head in 2020, which incident brought the family to the attention of the CAS; Yuri throwing a keyboard and punching her on the back of the head and shoulder in 2022; Yuri throwing a computer from a table another time; and Yuri breaking the bed on yet another occasion. Tatiana indicated that Yuri in fact provoked her physically during the incident on November 15, 2022, which lead to her arrest and their separation. Tatiana’s further evidence is that she felt controlled by Yuri, both financially and personally, and that he constantly criticized her. Tatiana described her and Yuri having very different parenting styles, with her being calm and gentle with the children, and Yuri being a harsh disciplinarian.

9Tatiana testified that things became very difficult in the last two years of the relationship and her was of coping with it was by drinking alcohol, which would generally put her to sleep.

10Yuri does acknowledge the 2020 incident of him kicking in a door. However, he states that he obtained help in the form of counselling, and any such incident never reoccurred. Beyond this incident, Yuri denies ever being physically assaultive to Tatiana. He also denies being financially abusive or controlling with Tatiana, indicating that they had a joint bank account into which his income was consistently deposited. According to him, Tatiana had as much access to the family income as he did.

11Yuri described the relationship going off the rails because of Tatiana’s drinking. He indicated that while she always drank socially, it became very bad in 2022, and additionally, that Tatiana could become aggressive when drinking. In the fall of 2022, Yuri created a safety plan for the children which entailed them going to the neighbours’ house if Tatiana became unmanageable.

12The parties separated on November 16, 2022, after an altercation resulting from which Tatiana was charged with assaulting Yuri on November 15, 2022, and for which she was subject to a condition that she could not return to the family home.

13After the separation, Tatiana slept in her car for a night or two and then stayed at hotels or in an AirBnB. Contrary to her conditions of release, Tatiana returned to the family home and took the car. On December 14, 2022, Tatiana was in a car accident and was charged with Driving Under the Influence.

14From December 15, 2022, to the end of February of 2023, Tatiana attended a rehabilitation program which was located and paid for by Yuri, totaling about $36,000. After she finished the program, Tatiana stayed briefly with friends in Toronto, until she obtained an apartment in Ottawa, which Yuri again assisted her in locating and moving into.

15The CAS was again involved with the family due to the November 15, 2022, incident and attendance of the police. In her Undertaking signed on November 16, 2022¹, Tatiana was prohibited from attending the family home at 36 Baypointe Crescent, Ottawa, or “within 200 meters of the residence, place of employment, or school of Yuri Dubovitsky or any place he is known to be”, except to retrieve personal belongings in the company of an OPS officer. Access to Tatiana’s children was to be “as per Children’s Aid Society or a Family Court order post-dated this document.”

16On January 30, 2023, Tatiana entered into a CCC Section 810 Recognizance for a period of six months in which she agreed to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, and to “not have contact directly or in directly [sic] with Yuri DUBOVITSKY EXCEPT through email or messenger for access to your children, or for the well being of the children, or through counsel, or pursuant to a family court order made after today’s date, or for court appearances.”²

17The CAS file notes from this period between November of 2022 and May of 2023, indicated that certain child protection concerns from the Ontario Child Welfare Eligibility Spectrum³ were verified, specifically the following:

• 33F, which is: Section 3, Emotional Harm, Scale 3: Child Exposed to Partner Violence, F – Risk of Physical Harm-Partner Violence: It is alleged/verified that a child is at risk of being physically harmed, either intentionally or accidentally as a result of partner violence and/or is at risk of being harmed during their efforts to intervene in an incident of partner violence.

• 33H, which is: Section 3, Emotional Harm, Scale 3: Child Exposed to Partner Violence, H – Risk of Mental/Emotional Harm or Development Condition – Partner Violence: It is alleged/verified that the child is at risk of being mentally/emotionally/developmentally harmed as demonstrated by serious anxiety, depression, withdrawal, self-destructive or aggressive behaviour or delayed development as a result of partner violence.

• 53B, which is: Section 5, Caregiver Capacity, Scale 3: Caregiver with a Problem, B – Caregiver Has a Problem Causing Risk That the Child is Likely to Be Harmed: it is alleged/verified that caregiver has a problem created by a physical, mental/emotional, or behavioural condition that threatens to interfere with their childcaring ability (or that has already caused some erratic child-care quality). Examples are chronic physical illnesses, physical disabilities, mental or emotional illnesses, substance abuse, criminal activity, intellectual disability and Caregiver requires, and may be receiving, help or treatment for this problem/condition, but there is no current necessity or plan for hospitalization, institutionalization, or incarceration of the caregiver. Caregiver does not yet have the problem well enough under control so that he/she can reasonably care for the child without putting him/her as some risk (e.g., alcoholism is still a problem) but caregiver is starting treatment, and this may be possible in future.

18Both parents indicated that between November 16, 2022, and May of 2023, Tatiana had only supervised parenting time with the children. On May 9, 2023, Yuri received an email from Child Protection Worker, Alyssa Kraft, from the CAS of Ottawa which stated: “Thanks for the update Yuri! You can proceed with the kids having visits as you see fit.”⁴ Thereafter, Katiana had unsupervised parenting time with the children, including some overnight visits, until June 29, 2024, when an incident occurred which resulted in her being charged with a breach of her January 30, 2023, Peace Bond. Katiana attended the family home in breach of that Peace Bond and was again arrested and charged with the breach.

19On July 2, 2024, a Release Order was granted which included a condition that Tatiana was not to have contact or communicate with Yuri in any way, directly or indirectly, except pursuant to a family court order made after that date, in the presence of or though legal counsel, or “through email or messenger for access to our children, or for the well being of the children.” Tatiana was additionally not to be within 500 meters of Yuri (and his new partner’s) home, work, school or place he or she frequented except pursuant to a family court order made after that date.⁵

20Thereafter, Tatiana did not have any parenting time with the children until she brought a motion, which was before Associate Justice Kamal on February 25, 2025. Tatiana’s evidence was that she was devastated to not be able to see her children. Indeed, it was her evidence that she was devastated to no longer live with her children, as she had been their primary caregiver for all their lives. Tatiana did not have any relatives in Canada; her nuclear family was all that she knew, and she found it very hard to be away from the children. Tatiana did not, and does not, in fact, believe that she has an addiction to alcohol. She states that she went to rehabilitation in 2022/23 because she had no where to live after the November 15, 2022, incident and Yuri was promising that she would be able to come home if she completed a program. Tatiana indicated that she drank socially after completing the program, and at the time of the trial, she had been sober, in other words, had stopped drinking entirely, for about two months.

21On February 5, 2025, Associate Justice Kamal made a temporary without prejudice order that Tatiana would have parenting time on Sundays from 11:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., with LD being given the option to attend parenting if she wanted to. The parties were to proceed to an expedited motion, however, on April 1, 2025, Justice Audet adjourned it on consent for the appointment of an OCL for the children. Associate Justice Kamal’s without prejudice parenting schedule was maintained and continued to be the parenting schedule in effect at the time of the trial.

22The evidence demonstrated that Tatiana has had difficulty consistently exercising her parenting time with MD. Yuri’s concern about this is that Tatiana is still struggling with an addiction to alcohol, and the effects of such are hampering her ability to be present and appropriate with MD. Tatiana’s evidence is that while she has struggled to be consistent in seeing MD, this is not because of alcohol use; rather is related to her mental health. Tatiana feels depressed, and often cries, including in the presence of or on the phone with MD. She has trouble sleeping at night and will then often struggle to be awake during the day. Additionally, she does not want MD to see her in a bad way; therefore, depending on her state, she will sometimes forego seeing MD at the appointed time. Tatiana indicated that she has attended some counselling in the past and wishes to continue to do so to address her mental health issues, but counselling costs money, which she does not have.

23The outstanding financial issues in this matter are Yuri’s claim for ongoing and retroactive child support and ongoing section 7 expense contributions for the children, both of which he seeks on an imputed income to Tatiana of $52,000 per annum; Tatiana’s claim for equalization of the net family properties; Tatiana’s claim for on going and retroactive spousal support; and post-separation adjustments. In her Answer dated May 10, 2024, Tatiana also made a claim for “Respondent’s Costs of accommodations after the eviction”. Although she did not precisely plead for an order of occupation rent, at trial it is one of the heads of relief Tatiana was seeking. Again, although not plead in her Answer, at trial Tatiana was also requesting an order for the matrimonial home to be listed for sale. Notably, both occupation rent and the sale of the matrimonial home were discussed at the combined TMC/SC before Justice MacEachern on October 6, 2025. It is fair to say that Yuri was on notice that Tatiana was looking to be compensated for his exclusive use of the matrimonial home since November 15, 2022, and that she was seeking an order for its sale. For this reason, I deem them both to have been pled for the purposes of trial.

24The operative date for both child and spousal support is as of December 1, 2022. Given that Yuri commenced his Application on March 18, 2024, retroactive child support would be payable from December 1, 2022, to March 31, 2024, and prospective support would payable be as of April 1, 2024. Similarly, as Tatiana’s Answer is dated May 10, 2024, retroactive spousal support would be payable from December 1, 2022, to May 31, 2024, and ongoing spousal support would be payable as of June 1, 2024.

25Yuri has worked for many years at Assent, Inc., and has maintained a steady income. Yuri’s annual income for the periods in question are as follows:

• 2022 - $158,226 as per Yuri’s Notice of Assessment for 2022 attached to his Financial Statement sworn on December 8, 2023, at Case Centre page C45⁶

• 2023 - $171,614 as per Yuri’s Notice of Assessment for 2023 attached to his Financial Statement sworn on November 6, 2024, at Case Centre page C67⁷

• 2024 -$177,700 as per the previous year’s income on Yuri’s Financial Statement sworn on October 21, 2025⁸

• 2025 - -$179,301.84 as per Yuri’s current income on his Financial Statement sworn on October 21, 2025⁹

26For many years during the marriage, Tatiana worked in an accounting position for CAA North and East Ontario. However, as indicated, in agreement with Yuri, she choose to be home with the children from 2019 to April of 2022, when she returned to her previous position. Her income in the previous three years was thus zero. Tatiana continued to work until December of 2022, went she went on a long-term disability leave, returning to work again in September of 2024. However, Tatiana struggled with what she characterized as the effects of depression and anxiety, to the extent that she could not concentrate at work. In September of 2025, Tatiana was dismissed from her employment. She hopes to return to work but continues to struggle from mental health issues.

27Tatiana’s annual income since 2022 has been as follows:

• 2022 - $35,815 as per Tatiana’s Notice of Assessment for 2022 attached to her Financial Statement sworn on September 29, 2025, at Case Centre page C160¹⁰, as well as Trial Exhibit #60

• 2023 - $22,594 as per Tatiana’s Notice of Assessment for 2023 attached to her Financial Statement sworn on September 29, 2025, at Case Centre page C152¹¹

• 2024 - $14,361 as per Tatiana’s T4 for 2024 attached to her Financial Statement sworn on September 29, 2025, at Case Centre page C150¹²

• 2025 - $34,867.15 to September 27, 2025, as per her Record of Employment with CAA North & East Ontario attached to her Financial Statement sworn on November 19, 2025, at Case Centre page C175¹³, which included severance pay and $2,020 per month on EI as of December 1, 2025.

28As of May 1, 2025, Yuri commenced paying Tatiana spousal support of $2,381 per month on a voluntary basis. This amount of support was in the low range of the SAAG’s based on their respective incomes from 2024.

29Tatiana has not paid any child support to Yuri since the date of separation. Once Yuri commenced paying spousal support, Tatiana indicated that if Yuri paid spousal support at the high range of the SAAG’s, or $2,950 per month, she would be able to start paying child support. Tatiana’s position was that absent proper spousal support being paid, she would not be able to afford child support and still have sufficient funds to maintain her apartment.

30Yuri calculated that Tatiana’s child support payment for two children was $798 based on annual income to Tatiana of $52,500, which is what she was projected to receive in 2025 if she had remained employed by CAA North and East Ontario. Commencing in September of 2025, Yuri reduced his spousal support payment to Tatiana to $1,583 per month, reducing his voluntary payment by the $798 he believed her to owe in child support per month.

31Regarding equalization of the parties’ net family properties, Yuri filed a NFP which demonstrates that he would owe Tatiana an equalization payment of $40,675.38.¹⁴

32Tatiana filed several Comparative NFP statements, the latest two of which are were filed on November 20, 2025. In the first one¹⁵, it is reflected that Yuri’s position is that he owes Tatiana $39,549.73 and Tatian’s position is that Yuri owes her $49,799.73. In the second Comparative NFP filed on November 20, 2025¹⁶, the figures are that Yuri owes Tatiana $40,399.73, according to his figures, and he owes Tatiana $55,049.73 according to her figures.

33The differences have mainly to due with the value each attribute to a 1999 Bayliner Sierra boat owned by Yuri, ($10,000 according to him and $20,000 according to her), along with the values of other household goods, and with Tatiana’s position that some of the household items will not count in Yuri’s column if he provides them to her.

34In his testimony, Yuri agreed to provide the following items to Tatiana:

• Two big Ikea wall mirrors

• A 2014 TV

• A computer

• The Delongi coffee maker

• A bicycle

• An HP printer; and,

• A digital file of LD’s drawings

35Yuri did not agree to give Tatiana one of the $100 White House Coin commemorating the Ukraine War 2022-2023 or the Ukrainian postal stamp collection commemorating the Ukraine War 2022-2023.

36Regarding post-separation adjustments, Yuri has continued to pay for the carrying costs of the jointly owned matrimonial home since separation.

Positions of the Parties

37The parties are consenting to a divorce being granted. They agree that they have lived separate and apart for more than a year and that there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation.

38The parties additionally agree that given LD’s age, a parenting time schedule for her is not required. On October 27, 2025, the parties approved a draft order providing that both decision-making responsibility and parenting time for LD would be in accordance with her views and preferences. Decisions were to be made by LD, but where she requires assistance, they can be made jointly by the parents with Yuri having final decision-making responsibility after meaningful discussion with Tatiana.

39The parenting time orders sought at trial, therefore, pertain to MD only. Yuri seeks an order for sole decision-making over him. Tatiana would like an order for joint decision-making responsibility but is content to have the final decision rest with Yuri.

40MD’s consistent views and preferences are that he wants to spend more time with Tatiana, including staying with her overnight.

41Tatiana is prepared to provide Yuri with “BACTrack reports” on a weekly basis and seeks an order incrementally increasing her parenting time with MD until she is having him every other weekend from Friday evening to Sunday evening, and from Friday evening to Saturday evening on the opposite weekends. Once in receipt of her equalization payment, and her share of the equity in the matrimonial home, as well as proper spousal support, Tatiana plans to move closer to MD’s school, and once that is done, she would like the parenting plan to be reviewed.

42Yuri would like the existing schedule to remain in place until Tatiana has proven six months of sobriety, at which time her parenting time could increase on consent.

43As indicated above, Yuri seeks an order imputing income to Tatiana for support purposes at $52,000 per year, and for child support to be paid on that income. Tatiana is content to rely on Yuri’s Line 15000 income for the years in question. Her position is that it is appropriate to use her actual income rather than an imputed one. However, if the court finds it appropriate to impute an income to her, then it should be an income of $35,000 per year, which is generally the highest income she made during the marriage.

44Tatiana’s position in her closing submissions was that an equalization payment of $43,409.13 should be made to her if she receives all the items she is requesting from Yuri, or of $48,659.13 if she does not receive them all. An alternative position was that Yuri would pay her $55,000 and only certain sentimental items would be returned to her.

45Yuri’s position is the equalization payment owing by him to Tatiana is $40,675.38

46Tatiana seeks an order for spousal support for an indefinite period on the high range of the SAGG’s based on both a compensatory and non-compensatory entitlement. The marriage was long term, 23 years and five months, and she was 44 years of age at separation, thereby falling within the “rule of 65”. Tatiana submits that she was the primary caregiver and homemaker during the marriage. She was a secondary wage earner, took two-year long maternity leaves and stayed home with the children for a further three years. Yuri was the main breadwinner of the family, and she was dependent upon him during the marriage.

47Yuri’s position is that they were both caregivers to the children, and that he did his part in terms of the maintenance and care of the home. Tatiana, moreover, was gainfully employed during much of the marriage, and is capable of making her own income and becoming self-sufficient. Yuri submits that if Tatiana is entitled to spousal support, it should be in the low range, and of a limited duration.

48Yuri seeks to be credited for post-separation adjustments for the carrying cost of the jointly owned matrimonial home and to also receive a credit for the $36,250 he paid for Tatiana’s recovery program post-separation.

49Tatiana’s position with respect to post-separation adjustments is that they should be set off against the occupation rent Yuri would owe her for his exclusive use of the matrimonial home since November of 2022, which she estimates his share of would be approximately $1500 per month.

50Tatiana also seeks an order for the matrimonial home to be listed for sale.

51Her further position is that if Yuri is to be reimbursed for the $36,250 he paid for her treatment program, it should be credited against the retroactive spousal support he will owe her.

Analysis

Spousal and Child Support

52There is little doubt that Tatiana is entitled to spousal support, both on a compensatory and non-compensatory basis. First, this was a long-term marriage, over 23 years. Second, the evidence supports that Tatiana was the primary caregiver to the children from the date of their births to the date of her unwanted departure from the matrimonial home. She took a year-long maternity leave after each child’s birth, and she attended to the children’s needs thereafter. She also, in conjunction with Yuri, made the decision to stay at home with the children for three years, between 2019 and 2022. Tatiana was by all accounts, including Yuri’s, a good and attentive mother to the children. Although she did work throughout the marriage, it was clear from the evidence that Tatiana was the person whom the children sought out for support and to have their needs met. Yuri was the primary breadwinner for the family, and Tatiana and the children were dependent on him in this regard.

53Additionally, since separation, Tatiana has struggled financially, first because of attending her recovery program, and later in simply trying to make ends meet. From late 2022 to September of 2024, Tatiana was on long-term disability. In 2024, she was required to cash in some of her RRSPs to pay her rent and meet her living expenses. Since her dismissal from her employment in September of 2025, Tatiana has relied on time-limited EI. Tatiana’s unfavourable circumstances are clearly resulting from the breakdown of her marriage. Given her precarious mental health status, and the loss of her previous employment by dismissal, it will be difficult for Tatiana to become self-sufficient in the near term. Given her age at the time of separation and the length of the marriage, she is, moreover, entitled to indefinite support.

54Given, however, that she did work during the marriage and does have the capacity to earn an income, I find that support should be payable at the mid-range of the SAAG’s. While Tatiana has struggled with her mental health, she did not provide evidence from any medical practitioner of an incapacity to work for medical reasons. Indeed, it was her evidence that she hopes to shortly find employment again, such that she can contribute to her own maintenance. Tatiana worked for her previous employer for approximately 17 years and clearly has skills.

55With respect to her income for support purposes, I find that it is reasonable to use Tatiana’s actual income for 2022 through 2025. Although her income is lower for 2023 and 2024, Tatiana was in receipt of long-term disability benefits during this period, for which she clearly qualified; it can be surmised that she was then not capable of working.

56I find that it is also reasonable to impute an income to Tatiana of $35,000 per annum on a go forward basis until such time as she can retain employment. She made this sum when she was working in 2022 and made a very similar sum in 2025 via a combination of her employment income and EI benefits. Although Yuri seeks to have an income imputed to Tatiana of $52,500, this is, in my view, not reasonable. Yuri relies on a letter from Tatiana’s employer, CAA, dated November 28, 2024, confirming that as of January 1, 2025, Tatiana’s annual income would be $52,500.¹⁷ However, Tatiana never made $52,500 in 2025, and it is unlikely that she will do so in the foreseeable future. It is, thus, in my view, reasonable to base both spousal support payable by Yuri and child support payable by Tatiana on an annual income which she has demonstrably made in the past. Support payments will be based on Tatiana’s actual income for 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025, as well as Yuri’s Line 15000 incomes for those same years. Commencing January 1, 2026, it will be payable on an annual imputed income of $35,000 or her actual income, if higher.

57Therefore, spousal support will be payable by Yuri to Tatiana as follows:

• December 2022 - $2,760 based on Yuri’s income of $158,226 and Tatiana’s income of $38,815. However, given that the spousal support for 2022 is neither deductible to Yuri nor taxable to Tatiana, the after-tax cost/benefit sum of mid-range support is $1,780.50

• January 1 to December 31, 2023 - $3,368 per month based on Yuri’s income of $171,614 and Tatiana’s income of $22,594. However, given that the spousal support for 2023 is neither deductible to Yuri nor taxable to Tatiana, the after-tax cost/benefit sum of mid-range support is $2,161.50

• January 1, to December 31, 2024 - $3,597 per month based on Yuri’s income of $177,700 and Tatiana’s income of $14,361. However, given that the spousal support for 2023 is neither deductible to Yuri nor taxable to Tatiana, the after-tax cost/benefit sum of mid-range support is $2,372

• January 1 to December 31, 2025 – midrange monthly spousal support based on Yuri’s income of $179,301.84 and Tatiana’s income of $36,877.15. It is both deductible to Yuri and taxable to Tatiana

• Commencing January 1, 2026 – midrange monthly spousal support based on Yuri’s income of $179,301.84 and Tatiana’s imputed income of $35,000 or her actual income, whichever is higher. It is both deductible to Yuri and taxable to Tatiana

58By the same token, Tatiana owes to Yuri Federal Child Support Guidelines table support for two children as follows:

• December 2022 - $544 based on Tatiana’s annual income of $38,815

• January 1 to December 31, 2023 - $341 per month based on Tatiana’s income of $22,594

• January 1 to December 31, 2024 - $0 per month based on Tatiana’s income of $14,361

• January 1 to December 31, 2025 – the table amount of support for two children is $559.68 per month based on Tatiana’s income of $36,877.15. However, a DivorceMate calculation will have to be done on a “Custodial Payor” formula to take the implications of spousal support payable by Yuri into account

• Commencing January 1, 2026 – the table amount of support for two children is $534 per month based on Tatiana’s imputed income of $35,000, or table support for two children based on her actual income, if higher. Again, however, a DivorceMate calculation will have to be done on a “Custodial Payor” formula to take the implications of spousal support payable by Yuri into account

59Yuri has not sought an order for retroactive s. 7 expense contributions but does seek an order for prospective s. 7 expense contributions proportionate to the parties’ incomes, which will be granted.

Equalization of the Parties’ NFP

60The parties are not particularly far apart as it pertains to the equalization payment that Yuri will owe to Tatiana. As indicated above, Yuri’s calculation is that he owes Tatiana $40,675.38. Tatiana’s position was, frankly, hard to follow, in that she calculated it to be somewhere between $43,409.13 and $55,049.73, depending on whether he gave her certain household items or not. In her closing submissions, Tatiana indicated at one point that it was her position that the equalization payment is $43,409.13 if she receives all the items requested or $48,659.13 if she does not. Yet, at another point in her submissions, Tatiana indicated that the order she is requesting if for an equalization payment of $55,000 and for certain sentimental items to be returned to her; or for $50,000 with a list of specific household items to be returned to her.

61The major difference in the parties’ calculations pertained to household goods and items, including the value of the 1999 Bayliner Sierra boat. Tatiana gave it a value of $20,000 and provided evidence of comparatives of the same or similar models of boats for sale, which ranged from $19,995 to $49,000¹⁸. Yuri gave it a value of $10,000 but provided no evidence beyond his own statements as to its value and the work that would need to be done to it to render it sale ready. Frankly, the onus was on Yuri to demonstrate the value of the boat in his possession; he did not provide an appraisal of it or any other evidence supporting its value. I, therefore, accept the value attributed to it by Tatiana.

62Another difference in Tatiana’s November of 2025 Comparative NFP was the value of Yuri’s 2014 CMC Yukon vehicle, with Yuri place it at $10,000 and Tatiana placing it at $15,000. However, in her closing submissions, Tatiana stated she was accepting the value placed on it by Yuri.

63Regarding other items in the category of general household items and goods, Tatiana’s was more specific about furniture and other items left in the home at the date of separation than was Yuri, who provided only a vague estimate and little detail. Evidence was received not only from the parties but from Tatiana’s other witnesses that the family home was well appointed and equipped. I, therefore, accept Tatiana’s estimation of values over Yuri’s.

64The one exception is that Tatiana sought to include in the calculation of Yuri’s NFP the value of “cryptocurrency mining equipment” at $5,500. Yuri testified that in 2021, he bought video cards on which cryptocurrency was mined, but that cryptocurrency crashed in 2022, as did his video cards. Frankly, Tatiana was not able to prove a value of $5,500 for cryptocurrency mining equipment, and it will consequently not be included in Yuri’s NFP.

65As set out in paragraph 33 above, Yuri is agreeable to providing the items listed to Tatiana and indicated that he may be agreeable to provide more, so long as Tatiana arranges to come and pick them up. What he was not agreeable to providing to Tatiana was either the $100 White House Coin commemorating the Ukraine War 2022-2023 or the Ukrainian postal stamp collection commemorating the Ukraine War 2022-2023. Tatiana indicated that it was important to her to have one of them as a momentum of the war, while Yuri insisted that she had “no right to them.” I find that it is only fair that Tatiana has one of the items they purchased as a couple to commemorate the Ukraine war; though Yuri will have the choice as to which he provides to Tatiana.

66Adjusting for the items Tatiana will have in her possession, and for the values of the boat, Yukon vehicle and cryptocurrency mining equipment, I find that the total value of general household items and goods for Yuri is $34,000 rather than the $51,000 attributed to him by Tatiana in her Comparative NFP. This reduces the equalization payment calculated by Tatiana owning to her from Yuri from $55,049.45 to $46,749.72.

67Yuri acknowledges that he owes Tatiana an equalization payment of at least $40,675.38. Ascertaining Tatiana’s position on equalization, which has depended on what items she will receive, has been a very challenging and imprecise exercise. I find that it is fair and balanced in the circumstances that, in addition to receiving the items outlined in paragraph 33 above and one of the coin or stamp collection, Yuri will pay to Tatiana an equalization payment of $46,000.

Post-separation Adjustments

68Yuri’s position on post-separation adjustments is that Tatiana is required to pay one-half of the carrying costs of the jointly owned home since the date of separation. These costs include her share of a) the mortgage on the property; b) property taxes; and c) insurance on the property.

69Tatiana’s position is that she was both prevented from receiving the benefits of living in the family home and/or receiving her share of the equity in the home, requiring her to find some other suitable accommodations for herself. Tatiana’s further position is that if Yuri is looking for post-separation adjustments from her, then she will be claiming occupation rent from him. Tatiana submits that to rent a home like the matrimonial home, which had four bedrooms and many amenities, would cost between $3000 and $4000 per month, half of which, or approximately $1800 to $2000 per month, is owed to her by Yuri. While one might question Tatiana’s entitlement to an order for occupation rent, given it was her behaviour which barred her from the home in the first place, it was Tatiana’s evidence that she attended addictions treatment precisely because she wanted to return to the matrimonial home and live with her family. Indeed, she applied early on, December 8, 2022, to vary her release conditions from her November 16, 2022, undertaking for the purpose of working towards reconciliation. That certainly appeared to also be Yuri’s objective originally. However, over time that ceased to be the case, and Yuri seemed to rely on Tatiana’s criminal prohibitions preventing her from attending the home, both to bolster his exclusive position of it and to control her parenting time with MD. Additionally, Tatiana has had to rent accommodations for herself while Yuri exclusively enjoyed the benefits of the matrimonial home. Tatiana was only barred from attending the home because Yuri was there, and he has remained there by his own choice. Yuri could have agreed with Tatiana to list the matrimonial home for sale at any time, such that they could both walk away with sufficient equity to set themselves up in new accommodations. He did not do that. Under these circumstances, I make no order as to the payment by Tatiana towards post-separation adjustments nor as to the payment by Yuri towards occupation rent.

70Yuri also seeks to be compensated for the $36,250 that he paid for Tatiana to attend her treatment program post-separation. He will be credited for this amount against the spousal support arrears which are owing.

Sale of the Matrimonial Home

71Tatiana seeks an order listing the matrimonial home, which she is entitled to request pursuant to Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act. Section 2 provides that all joint tenants and others with an interest in any land in Ontario “may be compelled to make or suffer partition or sale of the land”. Section 3 of the Act provides:

3.(1) Any person interested in land in Ontario, or the guardian of a minor entitled to the immediate possession of an estate therein, may bring an action or make an application for the partition of such land or for the sale thereof under the directions of the court if such sale is considered by the court to be more advantageous to the parties interested.

72The power of the court to order partition and sale is, therefore, discretionary.

73The Court’s discretion to refuse partition and sale is narrow, and an application for partition and sale should only be denied if it is the result of “malicious, vexatious or oppressive behaviour”, as set out in Latcham v. Latcham, 2004 CanLII 44960 (ON CA), paragraph 2.

74The applicable legal principles are set out by Justice Pazaratz in Dhaliwal v. Dhaliwal, 2020 ONSC 3971, at paragraph 16, and they include:

• that a joint tenant has a prima facie right to order for the partition or sale of property held with another joint tenant

• that a court is required to compel partition and sale unless the opposing party has demonstrated that such an order should not be made

• that the other joint tenant has a corresponding obligation to permit the sale

• that the onus is on the party who opposes a sale to establish that there is a sufficient reason, recognized in law, why the court should exercise its discretion to refuse a sale

• that generally, the party opposing the sale must show malicious, vexatious or oppressive conduct relating to the partition and sale issue in order to avoid the sale

• that each case must be considered on its own facts and that all relevant factors must be considered by the court in exercising its discretion

• that an order under the Partition Act should not be made until any dispute related to property has been determined in a Family Law case

• that partition and sale should not be ordered where a family law claim would be prejudiced

• that the court must take a realistic view of the potential impacts of a sale, both positive and negative in relation to the interests of both joint tenants and the family as a whole

• that it is inappropriate to delay a sale if doing so would indefinitely perpetuate financial hardship for the entire family

• that the court must consider the impact of a proposed sale on children and vulnerable spouses, and,

• that orders for the sale of a matrimonial home at the interim stage should not be made as a matter of course

75Yuri has not met his onus of establishing that there is sufficient reason, in law, to refuse the order for sale, and it shall, therefore, be granted. Yuri is, of course, free to make an agreement with Tatiana to purchase her interest in the home, if he so wishes, but barring such an agreement being reached, it will be sold.

Decision-making Responsibility and Parenting Schedule

76The court received no evidence from Yuri which would support the premise that Tatiana has been or would be difficult in jointly making decisions for MD. On the contrary, the evidence suggested otherwise. The parties were able to come to an agreement respecting LD. Tatiana has demonstrated concern about MD’s wellbeing and while her she may sometimes share more information with him than she should about her own struggles, she has not interfered with or attempted to make unilateral decisions for him. Yuri, on the other hand, without consultation with or consent from Tatiana, arranged in May of 2025 for MD to undergo a psychological assessment conducted by Positive Mind Wellness Inc.¹⁹ Yuri admitted in his testimony and cross-examination that he did not consult with or obtain Tatiana’s consent for the assessment in advance of it occurring. He also did not let Tatiana know about MD’s IEP at school or that he was prescribed medication for ADHD. Yuri again relied on the no contact provisions then in place to suggest that he could not do so, notwithstanding that there was an exception to contact Tatiana via her counsel. Tatiana fears that decision-making responsibility resting solely with Yuri may lead to more instances of her being left out of not only the decisions but also the information pertaining to MD’s needs. Based on Yuri’s actions around the psychological assessment, and his demonstrated lack of understanding of the importance of including Tatiana in the process, I find that this is a valid fear. As I have indicated, there is no evidence that these parents cannot make decisions in the best interest of MD together, as they have committed to do for LD if there is a decision with which she requires their assistance. Tatiana, moreover, has indicated that, as with LD, she is content to have Yuri make the final decision if they are unable to agree. There will, thus, be an order for joint decision-making responsibility, with Yuri having the authority to make the final decision where they cannot agree.

77Regarding Tatiana’s parenting time, the OCL conveyed MD’s consistently held views that he would like to spend more time with his mother, including by having overnights with her. The OCL supported that there be consistent and predicable parenting time with Tatiana, but that there be some safeguards in place, given Tatiana’s recent struggles with alcohol and with her mental health.

78Tatiana proposed a progressive schedule, with the safeguard of providing Yuri with “BACtrack” reports, culminating in her having MD in her care alternating from Friday evening to Sunday evening one weekend and from Friday evening to Saturday evening the other weekend.

79Yuri proposed Sunday visits from 11:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., to be expanded by written agreement of the parties only after six months of demonstrated sobriety, “verified through Soberlink or an equivalent program, and completion of an accredited relapse-prevention program”.

80I find that the proposal provided by the OCL is in the best interests of MD. In it is the incorporation of either BACTrack or Soberlink reporting to Yuri for a period of time before Tatiana’s parenting time is expanded. But, unlike Yuri’s proposal, it contains timelines for such expansion. As the parties did not provide any evidence as to the distinctions between the two reporting mechanisms, I find that either one would be suitable. Additionally, the OCL’s proposal provides for an end to the testing, so long as the parenting time is going well, but with the ability of Yuri to re-request it, if necessary. I do not find that a review period is necessary. Rather if one of the parties believes that a change is required based on a material change of circumstances, he or she may bring a motion to change the Final Order in the future. The parties would also, of course, be free to expand Tatiana’s parenting time with MD by agreement, if all goes well. Tatiana will have to ensure that she exercises her parenting time with MD on a consistent basis. It is hoped that once she has some resources at her disposal, based on this order, Tatiana will also be able to attend to her mental health care in a more consistent manner.

81Tatiana has alleged that she has been a victim of domestic violence at the hands of Yuri and subject to his coercive control, including financially. I cannot conclude on a balance of probabilities that this is the case, based not only on Yuri’s denials, but also on the evidence of Tatiana’s own witness, Natalia Fedosieieva, who was close to the family and whose observations of it were warm and loving. Natalia had never witnessed either Yuri or Tatiana to be aggressive; rather they were in her presence always respectful to one another. I cannot find on a balance of probabilities that incidents other than the one reported to the CAS in 2020 described by Tatiana and denied by Yuri happened; nor can I conclude that they did not. Yuri acknowledged the incident of him kicking the door in 2020, which incident MD witnessed and reported at school. Yuri took responsibility for the incident and indicated that he engaged in counselling to address it. He denies any other incident of aggression towards Tatiana. The parties, additionally, had a joint bank account through which the household monies, and especially Yuri’s salary, flowed, and Tatiana had equal access to it. I equally cannot find on a balance of probabilities that Yuri was exercising some kind of coercive control over Tatiana. Yuri nevertheless presented as rigid in his approach at trial, whether about what he believed Tatiana owed him in child support, her dire financial needs, which he did not seem to appreciate, or the parameters of the non-contact orders. I can understand that this type of rigidity demonstrated by Yuri may have been experienced by Tatiana as controlling over the years of the marriage. This does not, however, justify her strategy to cope in a relationship in which she was no longer happy by using alcohol, essentially as a sedative. I think it is safe to conclude at this stage that the marriage broke down because of the actions of both parties, and it does not help either to lay blame. It is clear that both parents love their children very much and they now must find a way to move forward in the best way possible for MD’s and LD’s sakes.

Order

82Based on the above reasons, there will be a Final Order as follows:

PURSUANT TO THE DIVORCE ACT:

Divorce

1. The divorce is granted on the basis that the parties have lived separate and apart for more than one year and there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation.

Decision-Making Responsibility

2. The Applicant and the Respondent shall have joint decision-making responsibility over the child of the marriage, MD, born in 2014, for all decisions related to his health, education and extra-curricular activities. If, after meaningful consultation and effort to make a joint decision, there is disagreement, the Applicant shall make the final decision.

3. The Applicant and the Respondent shall both be entitled to equal and independent access to all information related to MD, including form his school and doctors, subject to MD’s consent where it is required. The parties intend this paragraph to provide each of them with access to any information or documentation to which a parent of a child would otherwise have a right of access. If, for whatever reason, this paragraph itself is not sufficient, the parties will cooperate and execute any required authorization or direction necessary to enforce the intent of this paragraph.

4. The Applicant and the Respondent shall both be listed as MD’s parents and emergency contacts at school.

5. The Applicant and the Respondent shall keep each other informed about MD’s care providers, including doctors, counsellors, or any third-party providing services to MD through a parenting communication App of their choice.

6. The party with whom the child is scheduled to be according to the parenting time schedule will make the day-to-day decisions affecting the child during that time.

Parenting Schedule

7. The child, MD’s primary residence shall be with the Applicant.

8. The Respondent’s parenting time with the child shall be as follows:

a. Every Sunday from 11:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

b. The Respondent will provide, every week prior to parenting time, a BACTrack or Sober Link report to the Applicant. These will be provided for a period of three months and can be requested in the future by the Applicant on a quarterly basis, or on a weekly basis for a further month, if the Applicant suspects that the Respondent has been consuming alcohol during her parenting time.

c. Once the BACTrack or Sober Links reports are provided to the Applicant and show that the Respondent has not been consuming alcohol, then the Respondent’s parenting time shall increase as follows;

i. Weekend 1: MD stays with the Respondent from Saturday at 11:00 to Sunday at 5:30 for four consecutive weeks.

ii. Weekend 5: MD stays with the Respondent from Friday evening to Sunday evening at 5:30 p.m. for two consecutive weeks.

iii. Weekend 7: MD stays with the Respondent from Friday evening to Sunday at 5:30 p.m.

iv. Weekend 8: MD stays with the Respondent from Friday evening until Saturday at 5:30 p.m.

v. The schedule of weekends 7 and 8 will continue as the regular schedule thereafter, so long as there are no issues with alcohol.

d. MD shall spend Mother’s Day with the Respondent and Father’s Day with the Applicant, regardless of in whose care he is scheduled to be.

e. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing, Christmas Eve overnight to Christmas Day shall alternate each year, with the Applicant having odd years and the Respondent having even years.

f. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing, Christmas Eve day overnight to Christmas Day shall alternate each year, with the Applicant having odd years and the Respondent having even years.

g. If not otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing, New Year’s Eve day overnight to January 2 shall alternate each year, with the Applicant having even years and the Respondent having odd years.

9. The Applicant and the Respondent shall ensure that MD has time with the other parent on Easter, Thanksgiving and March break.

10. The Respondent shall have such other parenting time as is agreed to between the parties in writing.

11. The Respondent shall refrain from consuming alcohol for 24 hours prior to and during her parenting time. The Applicant may suspend or reschedule parenting time if the Respondent presents as impaired or under the influence of alcohol.

Child Support

12. Commencing December 1, 2022, the Respondent shall pay to the Applicant $544 per month in support for the children, LD, born in 2009, and MD, born in 2014, that being the Federal Child Support Guidelines table amount for two children on an annual income of $35,815 on a “Custodial Payor’ formula.

13. Commencing January 1, 2023, the Respondent shall pay to the Applicant $341 per month in support for the children, LD, born in 2009, and MD, born in 2014, that being the Federal Child Support Guidelines table amount for two children on an annual income of $22,594, on a “Custodial Payor’ formula.

14. Commencing January 1, 2024, the Respondent shall pay to the Applicant $0 per month in support for the children, LD, born in 2009, and MD, born in 2014, that being the Federal Child Support Guidelines table amount for two children on an annual income of $14,361, on a “Custodial Payor’ formula.

15. Commencing January 1, 2025, the Respondent shall pay to the Applicant the table amount of support for two children base on her annual income of $36,877.15, on a “Custodial Payor” formula.

16. Commencing January 1, 2026, the Respondent shall pay to the Applicant the table amount of support for two children base on her annual imputed income of $35,000, or on her Line 15000 income, if it is higher, on a “Custodial Payor” formula.

17. The parties shall provide the court with DivorceMate calculations for 2025 and 2026 determining the table amount payable by Tatiana on a “Custodial Payor” formula, accounting for the implications of spousal support payable by Yuri.

Section 7 Expense Contributions

18. Commencing January 1, 2026, the Applicant and the Respondent shall share the children’s section 7 or extraordinary expenses proportionate to their respective incomes For 2026, it will be calculated on Yuri’s income of $179,301.84 and Tatiana’s imputed income of $35,000 or is her actual income, whichever is higher.

Spousal Support

19. Commencing December 1, 2022, the Applicant shall pay to the Respondent mid-range of the SSAG’s support of $1,780.50 per month based on his annual income of $158,226 and the Respondent’s annual income of $38,815. Arrears of spousal support for 2022 are fixed at $1,780.50.

20. Commencing January 1, 2023, the Applicant shall pay to the Respondent mid-range of the SSAG’s support of $2161.50 per month based on his annual income of $171,614 and the Respondent’s annual income of $22,594. Arrears of spousal support for 2023 are fixed at $25,938.

21. Commencing January 1, 2024, the Applicant shall pay to the Respondent mid-range of the SSAG’s support of $2,372 per month based on his annual income of $177,700 and the Respondent’s annual income of $14,361. Arrears of spousal support for 2024 are fixed at $28,464.

22. Commencing January 1, 2025, the Applicant shall pay to the Respondent mid-range of the SSAG’s support per month based on his annual income of $179,301.84 and the Respondent’s annual income of $36,877.15. Said spousal support shall be deductible by the Applicant and taxable to the Respondent.

23. Commencing January 1, 2026, the Applicant shall pay to the Respondent mid-range of the SSAG’s support per month based on his annual income of $179,301.84 and the Respondent’s annual imputed income of $35,000, or her actual income, if higher. Said spousal support shall be deductible by the Applicant and taxable to the Respondent.

24. The parties shall provide the court with DivorceMate calculations for 2025 and 2026 determining the monthly amount of spousal support payable by Yuri at the mid-range of the SSAG’s on a “Custodial Payor” formula on the identified incomes.

25. Spousal support shall be payable for an indefinite duration, subject to a variation based on a material change of circumstances.

26. In calculating any spousal support owing, the Applicant shall receive credit for any spousal support he has paid since May 1, 2025, as well as a credit of $36,250 for the payment of the Respondent’s rehabilitation program post-separation.

PURSUANT TO THE FAMILY LAW ACT:

Equalization

27. The Applicant shall pay to the Respondent $46,000 as an equalization of the parties’ net family properties.

28. The Applicant shall return the following items to the Respondent:

a. Two big Ikea wall mirrors;

b. A 2014 TV;

c. A computer;

d. The Delongi coffee maker;

e. A bicycle;

f. An HP printer;

g. A digital file of LD’s drawings; and,

h. One of the $100 White House Coin commemorating the Ukraine War 2022-2023 or the Ukrainian postal stamp collection commemorating the Ukraine War 2022-2023.

Post-Separation Adjustments

29. There shall be no post-separation adjustments payable to the Applicant by the Respondent for payments made by the Applicant to the maintenance of the matrimonial home.

30. There shall be no post-separation occupation rent payable to the Applicant by the Respondent.

PURSUANT TO THE PARTITION ACT:

Sale of the Matrimonial Home

31. The matrimonial home known municipally as 36 Baypointe Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario, shall within 30 days be listed for sale.

32. The parties shall direct the lawyer on the sale to pay these expenses from the family home sale proceeds:

a. real estate commission;

b. adjustments for taxes, utilities, municipal fees or levies;

c. amounts required to discharge registered encumbrances;

d. legal fees and disbursements relating to the sale; and all other sale adjustments.

33. After paying the amounts in (a) above, the remaining proceeds will be divided as follows:

a. The Applicant shall receive 50% of the net proceeds of the sale, less:

i. Any spousal support arrears calculated as owing by the Applicant to the Respondent, reduced by any child support arrears owing by the Respondent to the Applicant, as per the within order;

ii. $46,000 to be paid to the Respondent in satisfaction of the equalization payment owing; and

iii. the Respondent shall receive 50% of the net proceeds of sale, plus the amounts listed in para. a) i. and ii. above

Costs

34. If the parties are unable to agree on costs for the trial, they shall provide written submissions as per Rule 24(19) of the Family Law Rules.

83The parties shall calculate the total amount of spousal support owing by the Applicant to the Respondent, and the total amount of child support owing by the Respondent to the Applicant to arrive at the figure contemplated in paragraph 80, subparagraph 33. a. i. above. They shall then submit a draft Final Divorce Order approved as to form and content, along with copies of the directed DivorceMate calculations for child support and spousal support for 2025 and 2026 as set out above, for the court’s review and signature. If the parties are unable to agree on the calculations, a further appearance before me may be arranged through the office of the Trial Coordinator.

84If a Final Order as not yet been signed as per the approved draft order regarding LD, the parties may incorporate the terms of the approved draft order into the draft Final Divorce Order.

Engelking J.

Footnotes

1. 1Trial Exhibit #22, Undertaking of Tatiana Dubovitska dated November 16, 2022
2. 2Trial Exhibit #26, Recognizance of Tatiana Dubovitska dated January 30, 2023
3. 3Ontario Child Welfare Eligibility Spectrum, Revised 2024
4. 4Trial Exhibit #20, Email from Alyssa Kraft to Yuri Dubovitsky dated May 9, 2023
5. 5Trial Exhibit #27, Release Order for Tatiana Dubovitska dated July 2, 2024
6. 6Respondent’s Trial Record, Tab 4, Financial Statement of Yuri Dubovitsky sworn on December 8, 2023
7. 7Respondent’s Trial Record, Tab 5, Financial Statement of Yuri Dubovitsky sworn on November 6, 2024
8. 8Trial Exhibit #1, Financial Statement of Yuri Dubovitsky sworn on October 21, 2025
9. 9Ibid.
10. 10Respondent’s Trial Record, Tab 12, Financial Statement of Tatiana Dubovitska sworn on September 29, 2025
11. 11Ibid.
12. 12Ibid.
13. 13Respondent’s Trial Record, Tab 13, Financial Statement of Tatiana Dubovitska sworn on November 19, 2025
14. 14Trial Exhibit #2, Net Family Property Statement of Yuri Dubovisky dated October 22, 2025
15. 15Respondent’s Net Family Property statement filed on November 20, 2025, contained at Tab 34 of the Respondent’s documents on Case Centre
16. 16Respondent’s Net Family Property statement filed on November 20, 2025, contained at Tab 35 of the Respondent’s documents on Case Centre
17. 17Trial Exhibit #10, Exhibit “A” from Tatiana Dubovitska’s affidavit sworn on March 28, 2025, letter from Tammy Kinger, CAA Managing Director, Finance to Tatiana Dubovitska dated November 28, 2024
18. 18Trial Exhibit #58, email from Altynay Teshebaeva to Yuri Dubovitsky dated October 29, 2025, enclosing postings for the sale of 1999 Bayliner Sierra boats
19. 19Trial Exhibit #49, Psychological Assessment Report of MD by Positive Mind Wellness Inc. dated May 20, 2025