ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: 31754/09
DATE: 2012-04-13

BETWEEN:

ROY IRVINE PURGAVIE Applicant – and – JOYCE PURGAVIE Respondent

Self-Represented

Peter Callahan, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: January 10, 12 & 13, 2012

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MURRAY J.

Introduction

1This is the second trial in this action. The first ended in a mistrial in June, 2011.

The Events Leading Up to The Uncontested Trial in January 2012

The Events Leading Up to The Uncontested Trial in January 2012

2This application was commenced in July 2009. It was scheduled for trial before Miller J. in April, 2011.

3Before the trial commenced, Miller J. raised with both parties the fact that she had been involved in two case conferences earlier in the proceedings. Both parties agreed to Miller J. hearing the case. Justice Miller began the trial on April 7, 2011.

4It became evident to Miller J. on the first day of trial that Mr. Purgavie (hereinafter referred to as the “applicant”) was making disclosure of relevant documentation to Ms. Purgavie (hereinafter referring to as the “respondent”) for the first time during the course of the trial. Justice Miller adjourned the trial to be continued on June 13, 2011 and ordered that complete production be made in the interim.

5On June 13, 2011, the second day of trial, the applicant moved to have Miller J. disqualify herself as the trial judge on the basis of her prior involvement in the case conferences. While Miller J. did not believe she had access to any information that would prejudice her ability to judge the matter impartially, she disqualified herself and declared a mistrial. Miller J. awarded the respondent $12,000 in costs based on the fact that the applicant had resiled from the position taken by him at the outset of trial. These costs remain unpaid.

6The applicant did not attend before Coats J. at a trial management conference on September 19, 2011. At that time, a further trial management conference was set for October 19, 2011. Although served with a notice of the TMC, the applicant did not attend the TMC on October 19 th before Snowie J.

7On October 19 th , Snowie J. ordered the matter to proceed to trial - peremptory for the applicant - during the November trial blitz beginning on Nov. 7, 2011. On October 19, Snowie J. also ordered the applicant to produce relevant financial information (including information relating to his income during the period 2006 to 2011) within 10 days and to file a fresh financial statement. Failing compliance with the order, Snowie J. ordered that his pleadings would be struck and the matter would proceed as an uncontested matter. Snowie J. asked that the matter be given priority because of the respondent’s recurrence of cancer.

8By November 9, 2011, the applicant had not complied with his disclosure obligations and the matter was ordered to proceed on an uncontested basis.

9On November 10, 2011, the applicant brought an ex parte motion seeking to restore his pleadings and the motion was adjourned by Van Rensburg J. in order to permit the respondent to be served with the motion material. Justice Gray refused to reinstate the applicant’s pleadings on November 21, 2011. The matter proceeded to trial before me on January 10, 2012 as an uncontested trial.

10The applicant was given permission by me to attend the hearing and to sit at counsel table without participating in the proceedings.

The Issues

The Issues

11The issues in this case are:

1. divorce;
2. arrears of child support from January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2009;
3. arrears of spousal support, retroactive to the date of separation on July 15, 2006;
4. ongoing spousal support;
5. equalization of net family property; and
6. health, dental and life insurance.

12The respondent asks that the equalization payment be characterized as support.

13This application was commenced by the respondent in July of 2009. In her response, she asked for the relief outlined above. As noted above, the matter proceeded to trial but resulted in a mistrial. The respondent was awarded $12,000 costs as a result of the mistrial. These costs remain outstanding.

14The respondent now wishes to proceed with the issues raised in her answer and claim as set out in the amended trial record. She is entitled to do so.

The Evidence

The Evidence

15Joyce Purgavie was born on May 12, 1960. The respondent is a registered nurse. She met the applicant when she was a graduate RN.

16Roy Purgavie was born on October 18, 1945. The applicant is a graduate of the London School of Economics. He has had a successful business career.

17The parties cohabited from August 1990 until they married on May 15, 1992. They separated on July 15, 2006. Together they have one child, Jessie Nielson Purgavie, who was born on October 10, 1991.

18Jessie and the respondent continued to live in the matrimonial home, 1546 Destiny Court in Oakville, Ontario, after the separation of the parties until the home was sold on October 26, 2007 when they moved to the rented townhouse which is their current residence. Jessie currently attends Laurier University.

19The respondent is a registered nurse. She graduated from Conestoga College in 1980. Prior to her marriage, she worked as a nurse and then for a pharmacology company, and after that as a sales manager for a distributor. At all times she kept her nursing registration. When she met the applicant, she was working outside the nursing profession.

20The respondent worked - with some interruptions for medical reasons as will be described below - until Jessie was born in 1991. After her second diagnosis of cancer when she thought she might not have long to live, she stopped working and did not work for approximately six years prior to separation. During that time, the applicant had medical insurance and all her needs were provided for by the applicant. The family lived in Campbellville, Ontario until Jessie was in grade 6 when the parties agreed that she would be enrolled in St. Mildred's-Lightbourn School, a private school for girls. They moved to Oakville and purchased a house close to St. Mildred's-Lightbourn School so Jessie could walk to school.

21While living in Oakville, the applicant was the main bread-winner for the family and he provided well. They lived in an expensive house, enjoyed a good lifestyle, including travelling to Europe on numerous occasions for holidays visiting Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain and Italy, and in addition took trips to the Bahamas and the Barbados. Jessie attended private school.

22In 2006, the respondent earned $27,892. In 2007, she earned $13,162, being a combination of CPP disability pension in the amount of $12,541.32, employment income of $611.19, and interest income of $10.39. In 2008, she earned $43,558.68 from employment income and received $12,792.12 from a CPP disability pension for an aggregate income of $56,350.80. In 2009, her total income was $55,019.31, being composed of $13,111.92 from CPP disability pension, $35,649.39 from employment income and $6258 from employment insurance benefits. In 2010, her total income was $59,572.38, being composed of EI benefits in the amount of $16,092, CPP disability pension of $13,164.32, employment income of $29,706.52 and additional income of $559.50. In 2011, she testified that her income was $35,745, including employment income in the amount of $16,476.84, EI benefits of $5880 and CPP disability benefits of $13,388.16.

23The respondent has suffered and is suffering from cancer. She was diagnosed with cervical cancer in 1994. She had major surgery at that time and follow-up treatment. After follow-up treatment, for some years she was asymptomatic. Then problems recurred. According to a medical report filed by Dr. Curtis Johansen, a radiation oncologist at the Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre in Hamilton, in 2002 Ms. Purgavie was diagnosed with a blockage of the left kidney, a stricture of the lower left ureter and the return of cancer. She underwent a radical hysterectomy and sustained other procedures, including a partial ureterectomy with reimplementation of the left ureter into the bladder. Carcinoma was confirmed and a tumour was found on her uterus wall. Radiotherapy was recommended and treatment provided. She was actively treated and monitored by her doctors and then in 2008 another tumour was identified. Eventually, she had further surgeries in 2009 in which lymph nodes were removed and a bowel obstruction treated. In 2009, she was required to take a lengthy leave of absence from work. In 2010 there was another recurrence of cancer.

24Two extracts from Dr. Johansen's lengthy reporting letter dated December 3, 2010 are worth repeating. In this letter, Dr. Johansen states the following:

Through the history of our relationship she has been stoical about her problem with cancer over the several year journey with this disease. I have never seen her so distressed as at the present time but she has shared with me that these are due to financial concerns rather than health concerns, so my view is that her worries about her physical health are secondary to those of her financial health.

Ms. Purgavie's diagnosis is that of oligometastatic carcinoma of cervix. This is a rare variant of cancer associated with an indolent course, prolonged survival, and relatively good ongoing performance status. However, I expect as further sites of recurrent tumour are discovered over the following years, it will become progressively more challenging to eradicate these. It is absolutely impossible to give a prognosis as to this patient's survival and I think this should be viewed as open ended.

25The respondent has again been off work due to her illness since May of 2011 pursuant to the recommendation of one of her physicians, Dr. Steven Duncan, who stated in a letter dated May 27, 2011 that she was due to start intensive medical treatment which would make it impossible for her to continue working. In a letter dated September 13, 2011, Dr. Duncan provided his opinion that the respondent was not able to return to work because of ongoing medical issues. He stated as follows:" She is not able to return to work because of ongoing medical issues. Her symptoms are very troublesome and her endurance is quite compromised. She is currently undergoing assessment by consultants and will be reassessed regularly." Dr. Duncan also provided a letter dated November 3, 2011 in which he asked for the Court to understand that as a result of several abdominopelvic surgeries and pelvic radiation, and suggested consideration be extended to her in court proceedings. Treatment appeared to reduce or eliminate a tumour in the summer of 2011 but now another has appeared and will require further abdominal surgery and a lengthy stay in hospital to recover. At the time of trial, surgery was tentatively scheduled for January 16, 2012.

26There is absolutely no evidence that the respondent has been underemployed or is malingering. Quite the contrary, she has worked as a nurse with various employers as much as she possibly could to provide for herself and for Jessie under the most arduous conditions. She has battled her cancer with extraordinary courage.

27My assessment of the respondent is that she is as described by Dr. Johansen, that is, stoic about her illness.

28As a witness, the respondent was honest, straightforward and not prone to hyperbole. In sum, her evidence was credible and I accept it.

29The applicant is shown by the evidence to be an unusually heartless and difficult person. The evidence also shows him to be untrustworthy and unreliable. Since the date of the sale of the matrimonial property virtually no spousal or child support has been paid. The applicant made some support payments before 2007 and continued to make some payments towards the upkeep of the matrimonial home after separation and prior to its sale. Jessie has been removed from private school and is now attending public school.

30The applicant, in affidavit material filed in this action, suggested that the respondent’s cancer has been exaggerated and used by her as an excuse for not obtaining full-time employment. Nothing could be further from the truth. The applicant was fully aware of her medical situation.

31After separation, the expensive BMW the respondent had during marriage was repossessed as a result of non-payment of lease payments. In 2008, the respondent leased a less expensive automobile which she needed to travel to and from her employment when she was able to obtain same. However, she was required, for financial reasons, to give up her leased Chevrolet Lumina. She had to borrow automobiles from friends or obtain rides from others in order to attend work. After being in receipt of a small inheritance, she was able to buy a used car.

32In September of 2011, the respondent was given notice by her landlord that she was $5,400 in arrears in rent and risked eviction from her rental unit at 2120 Emily Circle in Oakville Ontario. She was able to put the rent in good standing as a result of a small inheritance. The Court was advised that at the date of trial, the rent was up-to-date. Without the inheritance, the evidence of the respondent was that she could not pay rent.

33The respondent has been covered by the applicant’s health and medical insurance through his employment but is very concerned that his termination from employment scheduled for February, 2012 will have significant adverse financial impact as she will have to replace such benefits coverage for her and for Jessie. She estimates that similar benefits for a family of two is $280 per month which she must obtain given her medical situation.

34During the course of the marriage, the applicant had life insurance policies. The respondent was aware of at least three life policies. Two policies have a face value of $100,000 and one policy for $50,000. At separation, the applicant told respondent that she would be responsible for all life insurance policy premium payments. Notwithstanding the fact that he had paid the premiums on these life insurance policies for the entire marriage, and notwithstanding her illness, he put the burden of insurance policy premium payments on the respondent.

35With little income, mostly from disability payments, the respondent has had to cash in a $20,000 RRSP.

36Ms. Purgavie has been required to rely on food vouchers in order to put food on the table.

37In 2007, the applicant’s total income was $116,214.91 made up of income from Spence Diamonds Limited of $109,569.90, pension income of $6509.05, and investment income of $135.96. In addition, the applicant had RRSP income of $13,265.13 and reported capital gains of $24,824. In 2008, income from Spence Diamonds Limited was $79,344.09.

38In 2008, the applicant began his employment as national sales manager of Versa Fittings & Manufacturing Inc. The company is described as a manufacturer and supplier of brass fittings sold to commercial and industrial customers. In 2008, the applicant’s total income was $106,990, including pension income of $6,558.23. In 2009, his total income was $99,562.42 being a combination of $92,799.10 from Versa Fittings & Manufacturing Inc. and pension income of $6763.32. In 2010, his total income was $107,146.70 being composed of $107,146.70 from Versa Fittings & Manufacturing Inc and pension income of $6,790.32.

39A letter dated November 5, 2010 to the respondent’s counsel from Mr. Kelly Burton the president and CEO of Versa Fittings & Manufacturing Inc. confirmed that on November 5, 2010, the applicant’s salary was $75,000 with bonus potential of another $25,000.

40On November 30, 2010, the applicant apparently received a letter from Mr. Kelly Burton advising him that, effective January 1, 2011, his work hours would be reduced to an average of 22 hours per week and his base salary reduced to $37,500 per annum with an opportunity to make commissions of up to $12,000 per annum. According to the letter, a supplement of part-time income after January 1, 2011 was possible but unresolved. For reasons set out below, I conclude that this lerrter was intentionally misleading and sent at the request of the applicant with the objective of avoiding support obligations.

41On October 20, 2011, Mr. Burton wrote Mr. Callahan, the respondent’s lawyer, and advised Mr. Callahan that he is a full-time employee earning $37,500 a year, plus a monthly commission. Mr. Burton reported the applicant’s gross income to 30th, 2010 as $52,979.08 with the projected income of $63,500 for 2011. The letter of October 20, 2011 describing applicant as a full-time employee is totally inconsistent with his earlier letter of November 30, 2010 setting out that commencing January 1, 2011 the applicant would work 22 hours per week and would have his income capped at $49,500. The difference between the terms of employment set out in the November 30, 2010 letter and what was actually paid was never explained by Mr. Burton.

42According to a letter from Kelly Burton dated November 14, 2011, the applicant’s employment was terminated effective November 14, 2011. According to the letter of termination, he was to receive salary continuance for 16 weeks post-termination. According to information provided by the applicant, his income in 2011 is estimated to be approximately $70,290.32, that is, $63,500 from Versa Fittings & Manufacturing Inc. and pension income estimated to be $6,790.32.

43Kelly Burton, a friend of the applicant and the CEO of Versa Fittings & Manufacturing Inc., was called as a witness. Mr. Burton gave conflicting reasons for the termination of the applicant at various times. Mr Burton had asserted that termination of the applicant had been for financial reasons. He was served with a subpoena duces tecum and required to bring financial statements of Versa Fittings & Manufacturing Inc. to provide evidence of the company’s finances. Mr Burton refused to bring such records “on advice from counsel” notwithstanding the subpoena. At trial, Mr. Burton asserted for the first time that there were performance related issues with the applicant that informed the decision to terminate his employment. Mr. Burton stated that the applicant was well aware by November 5, 2010 that his employment was at risk. This is completely inconsistent with his previous testimony in cross-examination on March 28, 2011 when he stated that, at that time, he was not displeased with the applicant’s performance and had not yet decided on a reduction of compensation. Mr. Burton gave inconsistent answers about whether the applicant travelled for the company while “a part-time employee” at one time saying his travel was cut back and another time saying it was not.

44Mr. Nady Ibrahim is the controller of Versa Fittings & Manufacturing Inc. He was served with a subpoena duces tecum and required to bring the applicant’s employment file, information from financial statements, and records of all amounts paid to the applicant in 2011. Mr. Ibrahim was called as a witness by the respondent. Mr. Ibrahim has been in the employ of Versa Fittings & Manufacturing Inc. for approximately 11 years and, according to him, runs the accounting side of the enterprise. Mr. Ibrahim, like Mr. Burton, refused to bring any of the information outlined in the subpoena and testified that he had been instructed by Mr. Burton not to bring it to the trial.

45The failure of the executives of Versa Fittings & Manufacturing Inc. to provide evidence of Mr. Purgavie’s compensation for 2011 and their flouting of subpoenas duces tecum is consistent with and corroborative of the applicant’s efforts to mislead the respondent.

46Ms. Anne Barclay was called as a witness. She is a self-employed travel consultant and currently the partner of the applicant. She testified that he has lived with her at her residence since November of 2010 along with his daughter Jessie who lived with both of them until June of 2010 when she left. She testified that there was no perceptible difference in the amount of work done by the applicant for Versa Fittings & Manufacturing Inc. after his so-called cutback to 22 hours per week in the fall of 2010. According to her, the applicant has no plans to retire. Her evidence also confirmed that the applicant traveled for the company until he was terminated. Expense reports obtained by the respondent, and submitted by the applicant to his employer in 2011, indicate that the applicant travelled on behalf of Versa Fittings & Manufacturing Inc. on numerous occasions to other provinces including Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Québec, and British Columbia.

47The applicant’s statement of his 2011 income is completely unreliable as is his assertion that his employment was substantially reduced beginning in 2011. I conclude that the applicant’s assertion of part-time employment beginning in 2011 was untrue and designed to reduce artificially his income for the purpose of avoiding his obligation to make spousal support payments to the respondent based on his real income.

48Mr. Jawad Rathore was called by the respondent to give evidence. Mr. Rathore is in the financial services business and is employed by a company called Phoenix Credit Risk Management Consulting Inc. He testified that the applicant contacted and retained his firm in 2007. This firm was engaged to settle debt and to deal with various creditors. He gave evidence of debts of the applicant which had been paid in full or had been settled. He also provided evidence with respect to the applicant unlocking registered pension funds from Manulife and from AGF generating funds in aggregate of over $33,000 for himself. He gave evidence that certain of the applicant’s pension funds, for example $110,000 in a Manulife registered plan, were moved to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce to a tax free investment fund. In order to implement some of the instructions from the client, spousal consents are required but were not obtained in this case. For example, the applicant falsely attested in writing, in February of 2007, that he did not have a spouse in order to secure surreptitiously financial advantage for himself at the respondent’s expense. The form (Form 5) on which he made his false attestation makes it clear that it is a criminal offence to make a false statement on the form which was filed with the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. The form was completed in order to withdraw money from a L.I.R.A. This is further evidence of the unreliability of the applicant.

Child Support

Child Support

49The respondent seeks an order for arrears of child support from October 1, 2007 (when Jessie left private school) to June 30, 2009 for Jessie based on the table amount for one child. In 2007, the income of the applicant was $116,214.91 generating a table amount for one child of pursuant to the guidelines of $3,009.00. From January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008, based on an income of $106,990.27, the Guidelines generate an obligation that the applicant pay $932 per month. For the year 2008, the applicant ought to have paid a total amount of $11,184. From January 1, 2009 to June 30, 2009, based on an income of $99,562.42, the Guidelines generate an obligation on the applicant to pay child support of $873 per month for six months for a total of $5238.00. None of these obligations were met.

50The aggregate child support owed by applicant for the period beginning October 1, 2007 and ending June 30, 2009 is $19,431.00 for Jessie Nielson Purgavie, born on October 10, 1991.

Spousal Support

Spousal Support

51With respect to spousal support, and using the actual income for the applicant and respondent as recited above and the mid-range of support pursuant to the Spousal Support Guidelines , I agree with the calculation of spousal support obligations and arrears made by the respondent. They are as follows:

1. From October 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007 using the “with child-support formula,” the Spousal Support Guidelines indicate a mid-range of $2,286 per month. This calculation is based on an income for the applicant of $116,214.91 and for Mrs. Purgavie of $13,162.90. This generates an aggregate spousal support obligation for 2007 of $6858.00.

2. For the period from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008 using the mid-point of the Spousal Support Guidelines with child support, the spousal support obligation is $450 per month. This is based upon an income for Mr. Purgavie $106,990.27 and an income of the respondent of $56,350.80. This generates an aggregate amount of spousal support for 2008 of $5400.

3. For the period from January 1, 2009 to June 30, 2009 using the with child-support formula, against using the midrange of $273 per month, the aggregate spousal support obligation is $1634. This calculation is based on the applicant’s income of $99,562.42 and respondent’s income of $61,008.88.

4. For the period July 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009 using the without child-support formula, the mid-range of spousal support is $1039 (based upon the same incomes as referred to for the period January 1, 2009 to June 30, 2009 above) resulting in an aggregate obligation to pay spousal support of $6234.

5. For the year 2010, again using the without child-support formula, the mid-point is $1122 per month based on an income of the applicant of $107,119.70 and for the respondent of $59,572.38. This calculation generates an aggregate spousal support obligation for 2010 of $13,464.

6. I have found the statement of the applicant’s income for 2011 of $70,290 (to the end of October 2011) to be misleadingly low. On the other hand, for purposes of calculating spousal support arrears, the respondent has been content to use that figure even though it was only income up to the end of October as reported by the employer. Using the mid-range and based on that income figure and the respondent’s income figure of $35,745, spousal support obligation amounts to $832.00 per month or an aggregate of $9984 for 2011.

52The aggregate spousal support arrears owed by the applicant, conservatively calculated, amount to $43,578. Against this amount the respondent credits the applicant with several payments of $500 and $600 amounting to $4,800 paid in 2011. This leaves an aggregate spousal support obligation of $38,778.00. However, had this spousal support of $38,778.00 been paid periodically throughout the years in question, it would have been deductible to Mr. Purgavie for income tax purposes. Similarly, it would have been taxable to Mrs. Purgavie. Any lump sum award made today is not deductible to Mr. Purgavie and it is not taxable to Mrs. Purgavie. In the interest of fairness, I have exercised my discretion and discounted the sum of $38,778.00 by 25% with the result that Mr. Purgavie is ordered to pay retroactive lump sum spousal support in the amount of $29,083.00.

53On a go forward basis, I find the applicant to be capable of earning $100,000 per annum and impute this income to him for purposes of calculating spousal support. According to the medical evidence, the respondent is no longer capable of work. Her income therefore will be $13,000 per annum from her CPP disability pension.

54Using the mid-point of the Spousal Support Guidelines , a monthly spousal support payment of $1,900 per month is reasonable for an indefinite period. This shall commence on May 1, 2012.

55For the first four months of 2012, I award a further lump sum of retroactive spousal support in the amount of $5700.00 (being 4x $1900 discounted by 25% for the reasons given above).

Net Family Property

Net Family Property

56The matrimonial home was sold for $995,000. After using the proceeds of sale to pay encumbrances on the property and other debts accumulated during the marriage, each of the parties were received $25,621.90 from the sale proceeds. The calculation of net family property placed in evidence by the respondent, and attested to by her under oath, shows that the applicant owes her $55,360.80 as her share of net family property. I accept that she has established in evidence the accuracy of her calculation of net family property which is set out in detail in exhibit “B” to these proceedings and the exhibits contained therein.

Insurance

Insurance

57As noted above, the respondent was covered by the applicant’s health, dental and medical insurance through his employment. His termination from employment will have significant adverse financial impact as she will have to replace such benefits coverage. The applicant should replace the health, dental and medical insurance for the respondent either through new employment or by purchasing such insurance estimated. Such insurance is imperative for the respondent.

Conclusion

Conclusion

58IT IS ORDERED THAT Roy Irvine Purgavie and Joyce Purgavie be divorced and the divorce is to take effect 31 days after the date of this judgment.

59IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the applicant Roy Irvine Purgavie shall pay to the respondent Joyce Purgavie the amount of $19,431 in child support arrears for Jesse Nielsen Purgavie born on October 10, 1991;

60IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the applicant Roy Irvine Purgavie shall pay to the respondent Joyce Purgavie the lump sum amount of $29,083.00 in spousal support arrears (for the period commencing January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2011);

61IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT commencing May 1, 2012 and on the first of each and every month thereafter, Roy Irvine Purgavie shall pay to the respondent Joyce Purgavie spousal support in the amount of $1900 per month;

62IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the applicant Roy Irvine Purgavie shall pay to the respondent Joyce Purgavie the lump sum amount of $5700.00 in spousal support arrears (for the period commencing January 1, 2012 to April 30, 2012);

63IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT commencing May 1, 2012 and on the first of each and every month thereafter, Roy Irvine Purgavie shall pay to the respondent Joyce Purgavie the amount of $280 per month to enable her to purchase health, dental and medical insurance;

64IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT that Mr. Purgavie shall pay to Ms. Purgavie the amount of $55,360.80 as her share of net family property;

65IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a Support Deduction Order shall issue.

66IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT all payments of lump sum amounts ordered in paragraphs 59. 60, 62 and 64 are payable forthwith and shall attract post-judgment interest calculated in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act from the date of judgment to the date of payment.

Costs

Costs

67The respondent is entitled to her costs. Counsel may submit brief written submissions with respect to costs. Mr. Purgavie shall be sent a copy of any such submissions