Philip William Augustine

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.

On a motion to vary prior family law orders, the court determined the parties' 2014 incomes, parenting-time consequences for two children, section 7 expense claims, and ongoing child support for a child attending school abroad.

Applying the income-imputation framework under s. 19(1)(a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court found the applicant unreasonably restricted his employment search after layoff and imputed income of $75,000.

The respondent's income for support purposes was fixed at $600,000, including investment income.

The court found one child spent at least 40% of his time with the applicant during three summer months but not August, found the other child was not in the applicant's care 40% of the time in September, allowed the parties' claimed section 7 expenses including vehicle and cell phone expenses, and held child support should continue for the child attending private school in Switzerland.

The applicants sought leave to have solicitor accounts assessed in relation to estate-related legal work.

The court held the application was out of time under ss. 3 and 4 of the Solicitors Act because the accounts had been delivered months before the application and had been fully paid more than twelve months before the request for assessment.

No special circumstances were established, and there was no fraud or gross misconduct to engage the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed and costs of $8,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings and for security for costs due to his failure to comply with multiple temporary orders regarding spousal support, costs, and financial disclosure.

The court held that leave was not required to bring the motion despite the case being listed for trial, as the motion sought to enforce compliance essential to a fair trial.

The court ordered the respondent to comply with specific disclosure and payment obligations within 21 days, failing which his pleadings would be struck.

The court also granted the applicant a $50,000 security interest in the respondent's property for costs.

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.

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.

The appellants appealed a judgment awarding compensation of $228,261.41 to the respondent Estate Trustees on a contested passing of accounts.

The appellants argued the application judge made palpable and overriding errors of fact and awarded a grossly excessive amount.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding errors, noting the application judge correctly applied the five factors for determining compensation and reasonably concluded the Estate Trustees' demand for releases was justified given ongoing matrimonial litigation.

The respondents cross-appealed the costs award, arguing they were denied natural justice by not being allowed to make submissions on offers to settle.

The Court dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that while an opportunity should have been given, the offers would not have affected the substantial indemnity costs awarded out of the estate.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Counsel requested clarification regarding the disposition of costs following an appeal decision that directed a new trial on the issue of unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs addendum clarifying that the costs of the first trial are left to the discretion of the judge hearing the new trial.

The husband's father transferred common shares in his company to the husband as part of an estate freeze.

The trial judge found the shares were not a gift and included them in the husband's net family property for equalization.

The Court of Appeal reversed this finding, holding that the shares were a valid gift despite the father's commercial motivations and the husband's lack of knowledge of certain conditions attached to the transfer.

However, the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial because the trial judge failed to determine the wife's claim for a beneficial ownership interest in the shares via constructive trust before calculating the equalization payment.

The purchasers entered into an agreement to buy land, but it was later discovered the vendor owned 12% less land than described.

The purchasers sought specific performance with an abatement of the purchase price.

The trial judge dismissed the claim for an abatement and allowed the vendor's counterclaim for delay damages.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that a purchaser is generally entitled to specific performance with an abatement where the vendor cannot convey the whole property, and the trial judge erred in his application of equitable principles.

The appeal was allowed, the abatement granted, and the counterclaim dismissed.

The appellant requested that the Court of Appeal substitute the terms of access previously ordered.

The court declined, finding that the ordered terms were not unworkable and that the appellant's request for a substantially extended timesharing arrangement amounted to a marked deviation from the original order.

The court held that the appellant must bring a motion in the trial court to vary access.

The request was dismissed.