2023 MBKB 30, 2023 MBKB 30

Date: 20230214 Docket: FD 20-01-25055 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Stefansky v.

Belkin Cited as: 2023 MBKB 30 COURT OF KING’S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: ) VICTORIA STEFANSKY, ) ) Clayton Stewart Counsel for the respondent ) respondent/applicant, ) ) -and- ) ) ) ) YEVGENY BELKIN, ) ) petitioner/respondent. ) Self-represented ) ) REPORT ISSUED: ) February 14, 2023 ) MASTER BERTHAUDIN MASTER’S REPORT ON COHABITATION AND SEPARATION DATES [ 1 ] A reference order was granted on October 25, 2022, referring to the master the issue of the dates the parties commenced cohabitation with one another, and separated and ceased cohabitating.

The parties each filed an affidavit for consideration on the reference. In addition, the respondent/applicant, Victoria Stefansky (Stefansky), filed non-party affidavits sworn or affirmed by Adi Zucker, Anna Kalika, Natalia Giordano, and Natalia Bouneev. [ 2 ] It was directed that the affidavits would be taken as the direct evidence of each witness with cross-examinations to be conducted at the formal hearing, which was a hybrid in-person/Microsoft Teams hearing. As Natalia Giordano did not attend for purposes of cross- examination, no weight will be given to her affidavit.

An interpreter attended for the purposes of interpreting in the Russian language for two witnesses who were more comfortable speaking in that language. [ 3 ] The position of Stefansky is that the parties began cohabitation in September, 2009, and ceased cohabitation on February 15, 2020. The petitioner/respondent, Yevgeny Belkin (Belkin) takes the position that the parties commenced cohabitation in August, 2016, and ceased cohabitation on October 1, 2019. Cohabitation Date [ 4 ] Stefansky’s evidence is that she met Belkin in July, 2009, and they began dating right away.

She says that Belkin moved into her home in September 2009, soon after he divorced his then wife. She says that upon moving into her home, he began paying for all bills and took on a traditional husband role. She says that throughout the relationship from 2009 until February, 2020, Belkin paid the rent and most of the bills. [ 5 ] Stefansky says that Belkin brought home a dog as a gift in 2010 and the couple adopted a second dog in 2011. In October of 2010, she says that she and Belkin came to Canada on a trip to visit her friends.

She says that they travelled together several other times, visiting European countries and resorts in Israel. Stefansky relies on a document which appears to have been completed in support of a pending move from Israel to Canada in 2015. The document is entitled “statutory declaration of common-law union” and is dated July

14, 2015. In it, the parties jointly declare that they are living common-law, have jointly signed a residential lease, mortgage or purchase agreement relating to a residence in which they both lived, and jointly owned property other than their residence. The problem with the document, however, is that it is unsigned. It does have a notary seal on it, but the fact remains that it is unsigned. Stefansky says that the parties moved to Canada in January, 2017, with their two dogs and lived together in Winnipeg.

She says the relationship continued as it had in Israel, with the parties living together in a common-law union. She says the only difference was that upon arrival in Canada, they opened a joint bank account together. No documentary evidence of a joint bank account was filed. [ 6 ] The non-party evidence filed by Stefansky contained a great deal of hearsay and non-probative evidence. There was, however, some evidence from two witnesses that was of assistance in determining whether the parties were cohabitating.

Adi Zucker has been friends with Stefansky since 2002 and says that she has interacted with them over the entirety of their relationship. Originally, Ms. Zucker worked together with Stefansky, although she later became a legal assistant. When she worked together with Stefansky, she says that Belkin would pick her up every day from work. She also spent some time travelling with Stefansky and Belkin together. Finally, in her capacity as a legal assistant, she assisted in making contact with Stefansky’s ex-husband in Holland to request a divorce.

She says that Belkin was involved in that process, paying $10,000 Shekels for the lawyer to obtain the divorce for Stefansky. Zucker says that the parties were in a committed relationship, living together, travelling together and behaving as a traditional couple. [ 7 ] Anna Kalika says she has been friends with Stefansky since 2004. Originally, this was in Israel, but Kalika moved to Canada in 2008. After that move, she says that she would Skype with Stefansky almost every day.

While a significant portion of her evidence is hearsay, she does state that while on the Skype video calls with Stefansky, she would see Belkin and exchange pleasantries on occasion. More significantly, she says that Stefansky and Belkin came to visit her in Toronto in September, 2010. She says they stayed in her apartment for approximately three weeks of their trip to Canada, sleeping together in her spare bedroom. [ 8 ] Belkin’s evidence is that he and Stefansky met in 2009 but did not begin to live together until 2016. He says that when they met in 2009 she lied to him that she was single.

He appears to base his position on cohabitation date on his view the law in Israel. Paragraph 2 of his affidavit says the following: 2. The Respondent/Applicant met in state of Israel and begun live together in 2016, when applicant get divorce (she was married until that). We met first at 2009 and lied that she is single. It means that her saying that we started live together is simply untrue. (By the law of state of Israel married person can not be at the same time in common-law) [ 9 ] Belkin insists that the parties maintained separate residences in Israel, including when he gave Stefansky a dog as a present.

He says that he is allergic to dog fur and would not have agreed to have a dog in his home. [ 10 ] He agrees that as of October 1, 2016, they were living together and that was the date of commencement of cohabitation. Decision on cohabitation date [ 11 ] Neither party’s evidence was strong. The most significant piece of documentary evidence was the statutory declaration of common-law union, but it was not signed. Each party gave evidence about joint bank accounts, but no documentary evidence of bank accounts was filed.

Neither party filed any documents which showed their address during the relevant years, such as utility bills or tax returns. [ 12 ] Despite the weakness of the evidence on both sides, a recommendation as to cohabitation dates is required. On the balance of probabilities, it is my conclusion that the parties commenced cohabitation in September, 2009. I reach this conclusion on the basis of the non-party evidence which was supportive of the position of Stefansky. It is also based on the notarized statutory declaration of common- law union, despite the document being unsigned.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, it is based on my belief that Belkin’s position as to cohabitation date is largely based on his

interpretation of the law of Israel. His view is that a married person in Israel cannot also be in a common-law relationship. Whether or not that is the law in Israel is irrelevant to my decision in Canada as to the date the parties began cohabitating. The balance of the evidence supported the cohabitation having commenced in September, 2009. [ 13 ] My recommendation that the date of commencement of cohabitation is September 1, 2009. Separation date [ 14 ] Stefansky says very little in her evidence about the separation date, other than it is her position that it occurred in February, 2020.

I note, however, that Stefansky obtained a protection order on July 3, 2020, and the evidence on the court file in support of the protection order depicts Belkin being removed from the parties’ home by police on February 15, 2020. Presumably, this is the basis for her choosing that date for the separation date. [ 15 ] Belkin suggests October 1, 2019, as the separation date. His affidavit also says nothing about the separation date at all. He advised in his closing submission that he chose October 1, 2019, as that was the date he advised Canada Revenue Agency that he was single.

Decision on separation date [ 16 ] The evidence relating to separation date is virtually non-existent. While Belkin says that he advised Canada Revenue Agency on October 1, 2019, that he was then single, there is no evidence that he advised Stefansky of the same. Further, the evidence in support of the protection order establishes that the parties remained living in the same home until Belkin was removed from the home on February 15, 2020.

[ 17 ] On the basis of the little evidence available, I am recommending that the date the parties separated and ceased cohabitation is February 15, 2020. Conclusion [ 18 ] The recommended cohabitation date is September 1, 2009. The recommended separation date is February 15, 2020. Should the parties be unable to agree on the costs of this matter, an appointment may be made for brief submissions. S. D. Berthaudin Master