Philip W. Augustine

The moving party husband brought a motion for security for costs and for the payment of a previously ordered costs award.

The responding party wife brought a cross-motion to amend her pleadings to claim unpaid salary and occupation rent, and for leave to file late expert business evaluation reports.

The court found that the responding party's effective residence was outside Ontario, she had an unpaid costs award, and she had caused substantial delay in the proceedings.

The court ordered the responding party to post $60,000 in security for costs and pay the outstanding $5,000 costs award, failing which her case would be removed from the trial list.

The court dismissed the responding party's motion to amend pleadings due to delay and unfairness, but granted her leave to file most of the late expert reports.

Following a six-day family law trial involving complex property and support issues, the applicant sought $275,000 in costs.

The respondent argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party overall and had beaten her offers to settle.

The court also noted the respondent's unreasonable litigation conduct in failing to value his business interests.

The respondent was ordered to pay $225,000 in costs to the applicant.

The parties separated after a 20-year relationship.

The court determined the equalization of net family property, including the treatment of the respondent's interest in a family trust created during an estate freeze.

The court found the respondent had sufficient control over the trust to include its value in his net family property, and declined to exclude it as a gift because the applicant was a co-beneficiary.

The court imputed corporate pre-tax income to the respondent, fixing his income at $242,148, and ordered retroactive child and spousal support.

The matrimonial home was valued at $1,000,000.

Following a motion to vary in a family law proceeding, the court considered submissions on costs.

Both parties had made offers to settle, but neither offer was more favourable than the result obtained, rendering Rule 18(4) of the Family Law Rules inapplicable.

The court found that success on the motion was divided, with each party prevailing on some issues including income determinations, child residence, retroactive child support, and section 7 expenses.

The court rejected arguments that one party’s financial advantage or alleged aggressive litigation conduct justified a costs award.

In light of the mixed outcome, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The moving party brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the responding party from depleting her RRSP savings and for summary judgment requiring her to return an engagement ring.

The parties had cohabited but never married.

The court found the moving party met the three-part test for an injunction, noting the responding party had previously refinanced her home without disclosure, reducing the moving party's security.

The court also granted summary judgment for the return of the engagement ring, applying section 33 of the Marriage Act, which removes fault from the consideration of recovering gifts made in contemplation of marriage.

The Estate Trustees brought an application to pass their accounts for the period from June 9, 2010, to June 30, 2011.

The objecting beneficiaries challenged the legal fees incurred in defending ongoing matrimonial litigation and the quantum of the Estate Trustees' compensation claimed at 2.5%.

The court found the legal fees were reasonably incurred given the high-conflict matrimonial litigation.

Applying the five factors from Re Toronto General Trusts, the court reduced the compensation slightly to 2.25% across all categories, fixing it at $228,261.41.

The court also found the Estate Trustees were justified in requiring releases and withholding bequests due to threatened litigation.

The applicant moved for temporary spousal support, while the respondent moved for possession and sale of the matrimonial home, dispensing with the applicant's consent for the sale, and a restraining order.

The court awarded temporary spousal support to the applicant, imputing a modest income to her while recognizing her need and language barriers.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home but declined to dispense with the applicant's consent or to issue a restraining order due to lack of evidence.

Costs were awarded to the successful applicant.