Philip William Augustine

This decision addresses the valuation of the Respondent's company, Ottawa Garage Door Systems Inc., for the purpose of equalization of net family property.

The Applicant sought a valuation of approximately $3.3 million, while the Respondent claimed approximately $2.2 million.

The court preferred the Applicant's expert's valuation, finding it more reliable due to its comprehensive consideration of the relevant financial period, appropriate risk assessment, objective treatment of remuneration, and consistent application of valuation principles.

The court fixed the company's value at $3,290,000.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day focused hearing where the applicant was entirely successful in setting aside Quebec matrimonial instruments.

The applicant sought costs of over $400,000, while the respondent proposed approximately $184,000.

The court, applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, awarded the applicant $200,000 in fees and $65,106.73 in disbursements.

The court noted that neither party's offer to settle contained a true element of compromise, as the underlying issue was binary, and found some of the applicant's claimed hours for general research and costs submissions to be excessive and disproportionate, despite the high stakes and complexity of proving foreign law.

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 Trustee brought a motion to determine whether the increase in equity in the bankrupt's property, which was sold post-bankruptcy, was after-acquired property belonging to the estate.

The bankrupt brought a cross-motion claiming entitlement to the proceeds and damages.

The court found that the bankrupt was not an honest but unfortunate debtor, having failed to comply with his duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, including failing to disclose surplus income.

The court held that the increase in equity was after-acquired property vesting in the Trustee, rejecting the bankrupt's arguments based on an equity agreement and promissory estoppel.

The Trustee's motion was granted, and the cross-motion was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion heard on June 24, 2021.

The Respondent, who was the more successful party on the substantive issues of the original motion, sought costs of $19,000.

The Applicant sought an order for each party to bear their own costs.

The court applied the principles of costs under the Family Law Rules, including indemnification, encouraging settlement, and discouraging inappropriate behaviour, as well as factors under Rule 24(12) and the consequences of offers to settle under Rule 18(14).

The court found the Respondent to be the successful party on the substantive issues and noted that the Respondent's offer to settle was more favourable than the outcome for the Applicant.

The Applicant was ordered to pay costs to the Respondent.

On a family law interim motion, the applicant sought expert-retention orders, appraisal and disclosure relief, a declaration that an adult child remained dependent, increased temporary spousal and child support based on imputed income, retroactive support, and reimbursement for special and extraordinary expenses.

The court held that the agreed expert and appraisal-related relief resolved part of the motion, but declined to determine contested support issues on the interim record.

Relying on the limited function of temporary support motions and the adequacy of an existing holding order, the court found that imputation of income, retroactivity, special expense contribution, and the adult child's dependency status required fuller tested evidence at trial.

The motion was dismissed except for relief already agreed to.

This is a costs decision following a seven-day trial concerning equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The trial judge found both parties had negative net family property and awarded Ms. Lumsden $26,500 in lump sum spousal support.

The court noted the case was of little financial value and driven by costs.

Mr. Nixon, the successful party at trial, sought substantial costs.

The court found both parties behaved unreasonably during litigation, advancing claims for leverage and failing to provide timely financial disclosure, leading to disproportionate legal costs.

Consequently, the court denied costs for the period preceding Mr. Nixon's November 15, 2019 offer to settle.

Mr. Nixon was awarded costs on a full recovery basis from that date, fixed at $134,266.

An additional request by Mr. Nixon for preferential treatment of his claim over Ms. Lumsden's payments to her counsel and experts was dismissed due to lack of legal support.

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.

This trial addressed the equalization of net family property and spousal support following a short, financially separate marriage.

The court found no equalization payment owing as both parties had negative net family property, deemed zero under the Family Law Act.

For spousal support, no compensatory entitlement was found, but a needs-based entitlement was recognized due to the respondent's decline in living standard post-separation.

A lump sum spousal support of $26,500 was awarded to the respondent.

The applicant's claim for damages related to a matrimonial home designation was dismissed due to lack of legal basis and evidence.

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.

This application concerned a dispute over financial disclosure in an ongoing arbitration for child support.

The applicant sought an order compelling the respondent and 31 corporate entities in which he held an interest to produce financial disclosure as per a consent arbitration award.

The respondent cross-applied to be released from the arbitration or to remove the arbitrator due to alleged bias and unfair procedure.

The court dismissed the respondent's requests, finding no grounds for bias or release from arbitration, and granted the applicant's request for disclosure from all respondents, emphasizing the importance of full disclosure in family law matters and the children's entitlement to support.

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 sought an order for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home due to financial inability to maintain it and accumulated debt.

The respondent opposed the sale and brought a cross-motion for an order requiring the applicant to pay for an expert report to assess his pre-marriage assets.

The court granted the order for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, finding that the respondent's claim for exclusive possession did not raise a triable issue and that the sale was in the interest of both parties to satisfy debts and preserve equity.

The respondent's motion for interim disbursements for an expert report was dismissed, as the court was not convinced of a prima facie case of sufficient merit or necessity, especially since the applicant had already provided an expert report.

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.

The court rendered a costs endorsement following a motion by the respondent to strike the applicant's pleadings for failure to provide financial disclosure.

Although the underlying motion was dismissed because the applicant provided the bulk of the disclosure after being served, the court found the applicant's compliance was solely due to the respondent bringing the motion.

Applying Family Law Rule 24, the court determined the applicant's conduct was unreasonable and awarded costs to the respondent, emphasizing that parties should not be forced to bring motions to ensure compliance with court orders.

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 Respondent brought a motion seeking to strike the Applicant's pleadings or dismiss her application due to her persistent failure to provide court-ordered financial disclosure and answers to undertakings.

The Applicant opposed, arguing substantial compliance since the motion's service.

The court found the Applicant had a history of non-compliance, exacerbated by her counsel's medical issues, but noted significant disclosure was provided after the motion was served.

While acknowledging the Applicant's failure to comply with timelines, the court deemed striking pleadings a draconian remedy.

The motion to strike was dismissed, but the Applicant was ordered to provide remaining specific disclosure by set dates, and certain undisclosed documents (psychiatric reports, medication lists) were barred from use at trial without leave.

The case was set for trial, and the Respondent was awarded costs for the motion.