|
Appeals - Security for Costs (6). Yenovkian v. Shirtliff-Hinds Professional Corporation
In Yenovkian v. Shirtliff-Hinds Professional Corporation (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal granted an appellate motion for security for costs [under R61.06(1)(a) 'Security for Costs of Appeal']:[18] The issue on this motion is whether (a) the appeal is frivolous and vexatious; and (b) whether Mr. Yenovkian lacks sufficient assets in Ontario. I may exercise my discretion to order security for costs if both prerequisites of r. 61.06(1)(a) are met.
Analysis
[19] Rule 61.06(1) provides that:In an appeal where it appears that,(a) there is good reason to believe that the appeal is frivolous and vexatious and that the appellant has insufficient assets in Ontario to pay the costs of the appeal;
(b) an order for security for costs could be made against the appellant under rule 56.01; or
(c) for other good reason, security for costs should be ordered,
a judge of the appellate court, on motion by the respondent, may make such order for security for costs of the proceeding and of the appeal as is just. A. Whether the proposed appeal is frivolous and vexatious
[20] The first part of the test is to determine if there is good reason to believe that the appeal is frivolous and vexatious.
....
B. Whether there are assets in Ontario
[28] Under rule 61.06(1)(a), the moving party must also demonstrate that the responding party is not resident in Ontario. The onus then shifts to the responding party to demonstrate that he has assets in Ontario: O.K. v. M.H., 2025 ONCA 352, at para. 13.
[29] There is no dispute that Mr. Yenovkian lives in Nevada and has previously claimed to have no income. Moreover, despite repeated requests from SHPC, he has failed to meet his onus to demonstrate that he has assets in the province of Ontario.
[30] Moreover, if SHPC is awarded costs, it will be extremely difficult to collect those costs as not only does Mr. Yenovkian reside in Nevada but he has been known to use several aliases. Enforcement in Nevada will likely be very difficult if not impractical given Mr. Yenovkian’s documented use of aliases in court proceedings.
[31] As such, I am satisfied that Mr. Yenovkian does not reside in Ontario and has not demonstrated that he has assets in Ontario to satisfy the moving party’s costs if the appeal is unsuccessful.
Conclusion
[32] For the above reasons, I find that there is good reason to believe the appeal is frivolous and vexatious. In addition, Mr. Yenovkian has no known connection to Ontario and has refused to provide any evidence that he has assets in the jurisdiction. I am satisfied that there is a real risk that the moving party will be unable to recover both the costs of the appeal and the costs of the underlying settlement enforcement decision.
[33] I therefore order that Mr. Yenovkian post $26,375.32 in costs, which includes costs ordered by the case conference judge in the amount of $5,760.73 and anticipated costs of this appeal in the amount of $20,614.59, inclusive of HST and disbursements. Mr. Yenovkian’s appeal is stayed pending his compliance with this order and if he does not post the security as ordered, SHPC may move to dismiss the appeal without notice.
|
