Background
In July 2018, Vem Yenovkian retained the law firm Shirtliff-Hinds Professional Corporation (“SHPC”) to represent him in a family law proceeding in Ontario, paying $126,871 in legal fees. His custody motion was dismissed in September 2018 after the motion judge found he did not reside in Ontario, and SHPC subsequently terminated the retainer, citing misrepresentations Yenovkian had made about his whereabouts. Yenovkian obtained an order for assessment of SHPC’s fees under the Solicitors Act, and the assessment was eventually scheduled for June 23, 2025.
At the June 2025 assessment hearing, the parties reached a settlement in principle: SHPC would pay Yenovkian $56,250 in exchange for a full and final release in the LawPro standard form. Counsel confirmed the terms by email, with SHPC’s lawyer stating the agreement was binding. Days later, however, Yenovkian objected to the confidentiality clause in the standard-form release. SHPC agreed to remove it, but Yenovkian still refused to sign. Case conference judge Papageorgiou J. subsequently issued an order on November 13, 2025 enforcing the settlement, holding that a dispute over the form of release is not a valid defence to an otherwise concluded agreement.
Yenovkian filed a Notice of Appeal on March 6, 2026. SHPC brought a motion under r. 61.06(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking security for costs of $26,375.32, a stay of the appeal pending compliance, and leave to move without notice to dismiss the appeal if security was not posted. Yenovkian, acting in person, opposed the motion and sought a personal costs order against SHPC’s counsel under r. 57.07.
The Court’s Holding
Thorburn J.A., sitting as motion judge, granted the order for security for costs. The court found both prerequisites of r. 61.06(1)(a) satisfied. First, the appeal was frivolous and vexatious: the settlement had been concluded on all essential terms, and Yenovkian’s objection to the confidentiality clause was not a condition of the agreement — and in any event SHPC had agreed to remove it. The court further noted that Yenovkian had been put on notice before the case conference that a substantive order could be issued without a further hearing, and that case conference judges have authority in appropriate circumstances to issue such orders (citing Grovum v. Kouznetsov, 2025 ONSC 3899). The court also found the appeal vexatious given Yenovkian’s parallel Nevada lawsuit against SHPC and the trial judge, his use of multiple aliases, and his wholly unreasonable r. 57.07 request against opposing counsel.
Second, the court was satisfied that Yenovkian lacked sufficient assets in Ontario. It is undisputed that he resides in Nevada and has previously claimed to have no income. Despite repeated requests, he failed to discharge the burden — which shifts to the appellant once non-residence is established — of demonstrating assets in the province. The court found a real risk that SHPC would be unable to recover costs if the appeal failed, particularly given Yenovkian’s documented use of aliases that would render enforcement in Nevada impractical.
Yenovkian was ordered to post $26,375.32 in security (comprising $5,760.73 in costs awarded by the case conference judge and $20,614.59 in anticipated appeal costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements). His appeal is stayed pending compliance, and SHPC may move without notice to dismiss the appeal if security is not posted. His r. 57.07 costs request against SHPC’s counsel was dismissed; the court described counsel as having acted as a commendable officer of the court throughout.
Key Takeaways
- Under r. 61.06(1)(a), a court may order security for costs on appeal where there is good reason to believe the appeal is frivolous and vexatious and the appellant lacks sufficient assets in Ontario; once non-residence is established, the onus shifts to the appellant to demonstrate Ontario assets.
- A settlement is binding once the parties reach agreement on all essential terms; a subsequent dispute over the form of release — including a confidentiality clause not made a condition of the deal — does not invalidate an otherwise concluded settlement (citing Olivieri v. Sherman, 2007 ONCA 491).
- An appeal challenging the enforcement of a settlement may be found frivolous where the settlement terms were unambiguous, any objected-to term was removed by the opposing party, and the appellant had prior notice that the case conference could resolve the matter substantively.
- Parallel foreign litigation against the respondent and the original trial judge, combined with use of multiple aliases and refusal to disclose Ontario assets, can support a finding of vexatiousness sufficient to ground a security-for-costs order.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the binding nature of settlements reached through counsel and confirmed in writing, making clear that parties cannot unravel an agreement by raising objections to ancillary release terms that were not conditions of the deal — particularly where the opposing party has already accommodated those objections. It also offers a practical illustration of how Ontario courts will assess the frivolous-and-vexatious prong of the security-for-costs test in the context of settlement-enforcement appeals.
For practitioners, the case is a useful reminder that r. 61.06(1)(a) provides meaningful protection for respondents facing appellants who reside outside Ontario and have no demonstrable assets in the province. It also underscores that case conference judges can, on proper notice, resolve substantive disputes without a further full hearing — and that appeals attacking such orders face a high threshold where the underlying facts are clear.