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 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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

Following a 15.5‑year marriage, the respondent sought ongoing and retroactive spousal support after the payor spouse ceased voluntary payments several years post‑separation.

The court found entitlement to both compensatory and non‑compensatory support under the Divorce Act due to the recipient spouse’s economic disadvantage arising from childcare responsibilities, immigration challenges, and career interruption while the payor spouse advanced his technology career.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and considering the payor’s current income rather than averaging fluctuating earnings, the court ordered indefinite monthly support in the mid‑range of the guidelines.

Retroactive support was granted only from the date the claim for support was formally asserted, reflecting the significant delay in seeking relief.

The payor was also required to maintain life insurance to secure the support obligation.

Following a motion in a family law proceeding, the respondent sought costs of $7,725 after having been awarded costs subject to determination upon written submissions.

The court considered the parties’ conduct, including the absence of any settlement offer from the party seeking costs and the presence of an offer to settle made by the opposing party.

The court emphasized the importance of offers to settle in family law proceedings as a mechanism to narrow issues and facilitate resolution.

Finding the amount claimed excessive in light of these considerations, the court accepted the opposing party’s submissions and reduced the costs award.

Following a motion in a family law proceeding concerning compliance with an equalization payment ordered at trial, the court addressed the issue of costs.

A prior order had directed that a reference be conducted after the respondent’s discharge from bankruptcy to determine the unpaid value of any net equalization payment, but neither party had arranged the reference.

The court ordered that the reference proceed because the determination of the outstanding equalization payment would resolve most issues and clarify which party had been successful.

In the circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to defer the determination of costs until after the reference was completed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking imputation of income to the respondent, retroactive spousal support, variation of an existing spousal support order, recalculation of equalization, and continuation of medical benefits.

The dispute centred on whether the respondent had failed to pay a previously ordered equalization payment and whether a bankruptcy filing affected that obligation.

The court noted that a prior order required a reference to determine the unpaid equalization amount but that the reference had never been conducted.

Given unresolved factual disputes and credibility issues, the court held that these matters required determination through the ordered reference or mediation.

Interim spousal support and continuation of medical benefits were ordered pending resolution, subject to potential credit if no entitlement ultimately exists.

Following earlier reasons for judgment in an estate dispute, the applicants sought leave to make additional submissions on costs relating to offers to settle exchanged between the parties.

The respondents objected to the filing of further submissions.

The court held that counsel had already been invited to provide costs outlines at the end of the hearing and that no information regarding offers to settle had been raised at that time.

The court declined to receive any further submissions on costs and confirmed that the prior determination on costs would stand.

In advance of a new trial ordered by the Court of Appeal on issues of unjust enrichment and constructive trust relating to corporate shares, the applicant sought updated financial disclosure and interim disbursements and legal expenses under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules.

The court permitted expanded financial disclosure to allow the applicant to investigate a claim to post‑separation increases in share value.

However, the request that the respondent fund updated valuation reports and legal expenses was denied.

The court held that the evidence did not demonstrate a need to level the playing field, that the respondent lacked superior financial resources, and that the applicant failed to show the updated valuation was necessary or that the claim for post‑separation increase in value was meritorious.