Philip Augustine

The parties were married in 1987 and separated in 2015.

During the marriage, while living in Quebec, they signed two notarial instruments (in 1988 and 1990) adopting a 'separate as to property' regime and opting out of the Quebec family patrimony regime.

The applicant wife sought an equalization of net family property under the Ontario Family Law Act, arguing the Quebec instruments did not oust the Ontario equalization regime or, alternatively, should be set aside under s. 56(4) of the Act.

The court held that the Quebec instruments did not contain clear and cogent language addressing the relative economic positions of the parties upon marriage breakdown, and therefore did not oust the equalization provisions of the Act.

Alternatively, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the instruments under s. 56(4) because the respondent husband failed to disclose significant assets (his multi-million dollar inheritances) and the wife did not understand the nature and consequences of the contracts when she signed them.

The wife was permitted to proceed with her equalization claim.

The court determined costs following a motion and cross-motion in a family law proceeding where both parties achieved divided success.

The applicant sought an order that no costs be awarded, while the respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of $9,631.37.

The court found that both parties had problematic settlement offers and engaged in some unreasonable conduct, including the respondent's unilateral withdrawal of funds from a joint line of credit and the applicant's pursuit of final relief on a temporary motion.

Consequently, the court ordered that no costs be awarded to either party.

The mother was successful in dismissing the father's motion to vary his child support obligations retroactively.

The mother sought costs of $12,975.84, while the father argued each party should bear their own costs.

The court found the mother was presumptively entitled to partial indemnity costs and that her claimed amounts were reasonable, especially compared to the father's legal fees.

The court ordered the father to pay $8,500 in costs, enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as a child support order.

The applicant father and respondent mother brought a motion and cross-motion regarding parenting, child support, spousal support, and property issues following their separation.

The court ordered a Voice of the Child report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer to ascertain the children's views on residential schedules.

The court declined to impute income to the mother, finding her career path as a writer reasonable and not constituting intentional underemployment.

The mother was awarded interim spousal support and alternate weekend overnight access, but was ordered to repay $120,000 she had unilaterally withdrawn from a joint line of credit.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order that his custody and access motion be deemed urgent and heard before a case conference.

He alleged the respondent mother unilaterally left the home with their child and raised concerns about her mental health and marijuana use.

The court found the applicant's evidence consisted of bald, unsupported assertions and did not meet the compelling evidence test required under Rule 14(4.2) to bypass a case conference.

The motion was dismissed.

Following a trial regarding spousal support and equalization, both parties sought costs of $50,000, claiming they were the more successful party based on their respective offers to settle.

The court found that the applicant was the more successful party overall, having succeeded on the primary and most time-consuming issue of spousal support, as well as life insurance, while the respondent succeeded on equalization.

Finding the respondent's position denying spousal support unreasonable, the court awarded the applicant costs of $30,000.

Following the release of reasons for judgment in a family law matter, the parties requested clarifications and corrections regarding life insurance obligations and spousal support indexation.

The court corrected the name of the life insurer and the details of the respondent's death benefit.

The court also ordered that spousal support be indexed annually to the Consumer Price Index and permitted the respondent to apply in the future to reduce the required life insurance amount.

The applicant's request to vary the quantum of spousal support based on new evidence was dismissed.

The applicant brought a contempt motion alleging the respondent failed to comply with a prior disclosure order requiring an Affidavit of Documents.

The court reviewed the principles governing civil contempt under the Family Law Rules, emphasizing that contempt is a remedy of last resort and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt with a clear and unambiguous order and intentional breach.

The evidence established that the respondent knowingly failed to comply with the prior order and appeared to be seeking a tactical litigation advantage through non-compliance.

Although the respondent had substantially complied by the time of the hearing, the court found contempt proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given that the contempt had effectively been purged by the hearing date, the court determined that the finding of contempt itself was a sufficient penalty.