Judge denied father’s motion in family law case upon finding he lied about living in Ontario
In a family law proceeding, the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed a law firm’s motion for security for costs against a former client who allegedly misled it regarding his residence and who lacked known connections to this jurisdiction.
In July 2018, the appellant in Yenovkian v. Shirtliff-Hinds Professional Corporation, 2026 ONCA 366, retained the respondent law firm to represent him in the underlying family law matter in Ontario. He paid the firm legal fees of $126,871.
Opposing his former spouse’s request to move to England with their two children, the appellant requested temporary sole custody and said he wanted both children to stay with him in Ontario.
On Sept. 4, 2018, a judge dismissed the appellant’s motion upon determining that he did not reside in Ontario despite his representations to the court. Instead, the appellant lived in Nevada, US.
Shortly afterward, the firm terminated the retainer. It noted that the appellant misled it by claiming that his passport was in Los Angeles, and he was in Canada without a passport. His ex-spouse’s records showed that he was flying back and forth to the US.
On Sept. 26, 2018, the ex-client obtained an order for the assessment of his fees under Ontario’s Solicitors Act, 1990.
On June 23, 2025, the parties’ counsel worked to reach a settlement, which would require the ex-client to deliver a full and final release in the LawPro standard form. The ex-client later objected to a confidentiality provision in the proposed release.
On July 3, 2025, the firm agreed to remove the confidentiality clause from the draft release. However, the ex-client still refused to sign the document or accept its terms regarding confidentiality.
After a case conference on Nov. 13, 2025, a judge made an order enforcing the settlement terms. The case conference judge found that disagreement with the form of release was not a valid defence to the settlement that the parties had reached.
On Mar. 6, 2026, the ex-client filed a notice of appeal. Under r. 61.06(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, the firm moved for security for costs amounting to of $26,375.32 based on:
The firm also wanted to stay the ex-client’s appeal until he posted such security.
Under r. 57.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the ex-client sought an order sanctioning the conduct of the firm’s counsel.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered the ex-client to post $26,375.32 in costs and stayed his appeal pending his compliance with this order. The appeal court allowed the firm to move to dismiss the appeal without notice if he failed to post the ordered security.
The appeal court then dismissed the ex-client’s request for a personal costs order against the firm’s lawyer, who consistently served as a commendable officer of the court.
The appeal court agreed with the firm’s two grounds for seeking security. First, the appeal court saw a good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and vexatious.
In finding the appeal frivolous, the appeal court noted the ex-client’s insistence on deleting the release’s confidentiality provision, which was not a condition of the settlement, and the firm’s consent to removing the clause.
The appeal court also considered the appeal vexatious. The appeal court noted that the ex-client:
Second, the appeal court ruled that the ex-client did not reside in Ontario and lacked a known connection to the province.
According to the appeal court, despite repeated requests, the ex-client refused to give any evidence of assets in the province to satisfy the firm’s costs if his appeal failed.
The appeal court saw a real risk that the firm would find it extremely difficult to recover the costs of the appeal and the settlement enforcement decision, given that the ex-client:
