Duquette v. Duquette, 2013 ONSC 3044

CITATION: Duquette v. Duquette, 2013 ONSC 3044

BARRIE COURT FILE NO.: FC-10-37-00

DATE: 20130527

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

SUZANNE DUQUETTE Applicant

– and –

NOEL KENNETH DUQUETTE Respondent

K.S. Kieller, for the Applicant

Self-Represented, for the Respondent

HEARD: May 15 and 16, 2013

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DiTOMASO J.

THE TRIAL

[1] This matter proceeded to trial on an uncontested basis as a result of the Respondent Noel Kenneth Duquette’s (“Mr. Duquette”) pleadings being struck. The Applicant Suzanne Duquette (“Ms. Duquette”) testified at trial together with Dan O’Hara, a business associate of Mr. Duquette and Ian MacInnis, a lawyer who had previously acted for Mr. Duquette in a commercial transaction involving the sale of a company in which Mr. Duquette had an interest.

[2] Problematic in this case was the non-disclosure of Mr. Duquette regarding valuation of the company, his interest in it and his income.

[3] Even to the date of trial, there was significant financial non-disclosure on the part of Mr. Duquette which impacted upon the issues of equalization of net family property and his annual income as it related to the issues of child support and spousal support.

BACKGROUND

[4] The parties were married in October of 1990. They separated in May 2007. Ms. Duquette is currently 46 years of age. She works as an x-ray technologist at the Georgian Bay General Hospital in Midland. She is required to work shift work including midnight shifts and “on call”. Her income with extra shifts and call-backs exceeded $70,000 in 2012. Her historic income is ranged in the mid $60,000 amount per annum.

[5] Mr. Duquette is 48 years of age. He is an entrepreneur and business person. He was an equal shareholder on separation with two others and continues to be a minority shareholder in 1073849 Ontario Limited carrying on business as T.H.E. Medical (“T.H.E. Medical”).

[6] T.H.E. Medical is a large corporation that manufactures and sells, internationally, patient lifts and other medical assistive devices. Of this corporation 51 percent was sold in 2008. Mr. Duquette owned one-third of the 51 percent sold. He retained 12.5 percent of T.H.E. Medical after the sale.

[7] There are four children of the marriage:

• Zachary who is currently 20 years of age and will be entering his third year of post-secondary education in September 2013.

• Lucas is 18 years of age. Lucas took a year off over the past year after graduating from secondary school but continues to reside with Ms. Duquette. He will be entering into a college program in September 2013. He is considering a program in aviation which may cost up to $60,000.

• Spencer is currently 15 years of age and is in grade 10.

• Ellie remains in public school and has just turned 13 years of age.

[8] The children have always remained in the primary care of their mother, Ms. Duquette.

THE ISSUES

[9] The issues are as follows:

(a) custody and access;

(b) retroactive child support;

(c) retroactive spousal support;

(d) accounting for arrears of child and spousal support pursuant to an interim order;

(e) the equalization of net family property (including the sale of T.H.E. Medical in 2008 for 18 million dollars);

(f) Mr. Duquette’s income for ongoing child support and spousal support;

(g) enforcement;

(h) costs;

(i) divorce.

ANALYSIS

(a) Custody and Access

[10] Ms. Duquette testified at trial. She is 46 years of age and works as an imaging technologist at the Georgian Bay General Hospital in Midland. She has held that position for 25 years. She works shift work of days, afternoons and nights which all occur within the same week. Her schedule was described as “trying”. Her job also involves “call-backs” which often occur in the middle of the night notwithstanding the commencement of her day shift on the following morning.

[11] She would like to “post” the night shift and work fewer hours.

[12] She testified regarding her income which will be dealt with later.

[13] She and Mr. Duquette married in October of 1990 and they have been married for 17 years. She described the roles in the marriage as between herself and Mr. Duquette.

[14] Ms. Duquette gave her evidence in a credible and straightforward manner. She was a reliable witness who gave truthful evidence. I accept her evidence in respect of the issues at trial.

[15] She testified about her children. Zachary age 20 is a post-secondary school student. Lucas age 18 will be attending community college in September of 2013. Spencer age 15 is a grade 10 secondary school student. Ellie age 13 is a grade seven elementary school student.

[16] All of the children have primary residence with Ms. Duquette with access to Mr. Duquette.

[17] Currently, the children visit their father from Thursday evening until Monday morning on alternate week-ends and for dinner from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on the Wednesday following the alternate week-end visit.

[18] Ms. Duquette seeks joint custody of Spencer and Ellie with Mr. Duquette. There is no court order in respect of custody in place. Further, she seeks to change access not for the dinner visits but rather to shorten the alternate week-ends visits for Spencer and Ellie to Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. commencing May 31, 2013.

[19] She testified that while the older boys enjoy their time with their father, there are issues regarding Spencer and Ellie.

[20] She testified that Ellie is the youngest child who feels trapped on her week-end visits. She is surrounded by her brothers and father who have different interests than she does. Zachary and Mr. Duquette are described as football fanatics which often left Ellie spending time alone in her bedroom.

[21] She was not allowed to visit friends outside of Mr. Duquette’s residence. While friends could visit her at his residence, she could not go elsewhere. She misses her mother but is afraid to speak out about it. The original idea was that if Ellie did not wish to stay, she could let her mother know. Ellie is afraid to do so and therefore remains together with her father and brothers for the whole week-end.

[22] Ms. Duquette testified that this was not in Ellie’s best interest and that Ellie complains to her about it.

[23] While Ms. Duquette does not want Ellie to be restricted in her visitation, she wishes to change the current access arrangement. At present, it would be up to Ellie to say when she wished to leave. Ellie does not have the confidence to do so given the circumstances. Ms. Duquette contends that it should not be Ellie’s obligation to say she wishes to come home but rather the visitation should be shortened and, if Ellie wished to extend the visitation, that could happen.

[24] Ms. Duquette also testified that the children have been brought into the litigation by Mr. Duquette who has spoken to the children continually about Ms. Duquette taking all of his money, that he would have to sell his house which would also require the sale of a pet dog. The children have been exposed to negative talk about the issues in this case and their mother’s involvement in this dispute. While Mr. Duquette has discussed legal matters with the children, Ms. Duquette has not.

[25] She testified that this negative scenario extends also to Spencer. He needs guidance and stability as much as Ellie does and he is not getting it with the current access arrangements with his father. He also feels trapped. His friends can visit at Mr. Duquette’s residence but Spencer cannot leave to go to his friend’s place. He too is exposed to the negative talk about his mother and this litigation. He returns home sad. Both Ellie and Spencer are described as strong students and there is no doubt, according to Ms. Duquette, that they will be attending university.

[26] Ms. Duquette also testified that she is the parent that does all of the driving around to school and extra-curricular events involving the children. She is the one who brings them their medication at Mr. Duquette’s home if such is required. Mr. Duquette does not encourage religious attendance.

[27] The two less days sought by Ms. Duquette would make a difference in that she would provide a more stable, happy and better routine for Spencer and Ellie. She testified that she is the more consistent parent in this regard.

[28] I am satisfied on hearing Ms. Duquette’s evidence that there be a change in access regarding Ellie. I order that while the dinner arrangements remain the same, Mr. Duquette shall visit Ellie from Friday at 6:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. on alternate week-ends commencing May 31, 2013. I find that it would be in Ellie’s best interests to have shorter access with Mr. Duquette given the circumstances of her visits, the manner in which she feels trapped, her being exposed to negative comments about Ms. Duquette, the litigation and generally, missing her mother on these visits.

[29] Ellie needs some extra time with her mother on the week-ends and, more importantly, needs some time for herself and her friends away from her father’s residence.

[30] She is 13 years of age and would benefit from her association with friends of her own age outside of her father’s residence, if need be. Currently, she is not allowed by Mr. Duquette to leave his home for this purpose. It is little wonder that she feels trapped and isolated in the company of all of her brothers and father who have interests dissimilar to hers.

[31] In these circumstances, it is understandable that she does not feel able to communicate her wishes and discontent with the current arrangement. She does not feel comfortable telling her father that she wants to go home. It makes sense that she should be placed in a situation where instead of complaining about wanting to go home, she would be given the choice to voice her wish to stay longer. For these reasons, I have changed the week-end arrangements in respect of Ellie.

[32] While I appreciate Ms. Duquette’s concerns that apply to Spencer, I find that no change should be made in respect of Spencer’s schedule given the proximity of his age to his brothers. I was not satisfied that there were the same concerns of isolation notwithstanding the fact that Spencer also could not leave his father’s residence to visit with friends but he could have friends over.

[33] I am not satisfied that it would be in the best interests of Spencer to have shortened visitation with his father. A persuasive case has not been made out by Ms. Duquette in this regard. Therefore, there will be no change in respect of Mr. Duquette’s access arrangements in this regard.

[34] Finally, I come to the issue of joint custody. I am persuaded that there ought to be an order for joint custody of Spencer and Ellie. There is no evidence before me that the relationship between these parents is so dysfunctional that they cannot work in the best interests of their children on a joint basis. I have heard the evidence of Ms. Duquette about all that she does and has done for the children including doing virtually all of the transportation even during the times that they are at their father’s residence. She is the one who drives them to school and extra-curricular activities. She is the one who looks after them at her home and has always been the primary care giver.

[35] Therefore, I order that Mr. & Ms. Duquette shall forthwith share joint custody of the children of the marriage, namely, Spencer Duquette born November 27, 1997 and Ellie Duquette born April 27, 2000 with their primary residence being with Ms. Duquette. If Ellie wants to visit longer with her father (on weekends and holidays), she can certainly express her wishes for an extended stay to be agreed upon by her mother and father without including her in any such negotiations. In respect of Spencer, there is insufficient evidence adduced by Ms. Duquette that the access should change for him. Access for Spencer remains as per para. 17 above.

(b) Retroactive Child Support

[36] Paragraph 18 of the Order of Justice Wildman dated February 2, 2012 speaks to child support for the children and spousal support for Ms. Duquette based on Mr. Duquette’s imputed income of $200,000. Paragraph 18 provides:

The Respondent/Husband’s income shall be imputed at $200,000 (2009 income was $217,000 from employment and dividends and capital gains for a total of $289,000). On the Respondent/Husband’s income of $200,000 and the Applicant/Wife’s income of $60,000, the Child Support Guideline amount is $3,992 for four (4) children and $3,551 for three children and one in the summer. Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines is a low of $1,264 with section 7 ($857 net) and $1,345 (no section 7) which is $911 net.

[37] The evidence is that Mr. Duquette stopped paying child and spousal support at the end of September 2012. In respect of child support, per Justice Wildman’s Order, the amount for three children and one in the summer is the sum of $3,551 per month. For the period October, 2012 to May 2013 Mr. Duquette has neither paid child support nor spousal support.

[38] I have referred to retroactive support calculations prepared by the Applicant’s counsel. I agree that retroactive support for both child support and spousal support is for a period of eight months from October 2012 to and including May of 2013.

[39] Regarding child support, the retroactive amount is in the amount of $40,968 calculated as follows:

Section 3 to May 31, 2013 – (8 x $3,551 per Order of Wildman J.): $28,408

Section 7 (Mr. Duquette at 79 percent per Order of McDermot J. of $14,000): $11,000

Arrears owing as of October 1, 2012: $1,500

[40] Regarding the section 7 expenses, the evidence supports that the amount of $11,000 relates to payments owing by Mr. Duquette for Zachary for the years 2012-13. It was also supported by the evidence that Mr. Duquette by way of Court Order paid the sum of $14,000 for Zachary’s first year but he paid nothing for Zachary’s second year. The amount of $11,000 is based on the evidence of Zachary’s expenses for tuition, residence, food, books and transportation and calculated as a percentage of the $14,000 that Mr. Duquette was ordered to pay regarding Zachary’s post-secondary school education. The 79 percent factor is fair and reasonable given the respective incomes of the parties.

[41] As for the arrears of October 1, 2012 Mr. Duquette admitted on his questioning held January 23, 2013 that this amount was due and owing. (see p. 27 and following of said transcript forming part of the Trial Record).

[42] Accordingly I find that Mr. Duquette shall pay retroactive child support for a period of October 2012 to May 31, 2013 in the amount of $40,968.

(c) Retroactive Spousal Support

[43] Based upon the Order of Justice Wildman dated February 2, 2012 at para. 18, Mr. Duquette was obliged to pay spousal support in the amount of $1,264 monthly. He failed to do so for the eight months commencing October 2, 2012 to and including May 2013. I find that Mr. Duquette shall pay retroactive spousal support for this period in the amount of $10,112.

(d) Arrears of Child Support and Spousal Support pursuant to Interim Order of Wildman J. dated February 2, 2012

[44] I have dealt with these arrears above and again, conclude that they are in the amount of $1,500 admitted to being owed by Mr. Duquette in his questioning. He undertook to pay said arrears but has failed to do.

[45] I find the retroactive child support, spousal support and arrears as of May 31, 2013 total the sum of $51,080.

(e) Equalization of Net Family Property (including the sale of T.H.E. Medical in 2008 for 18 million dollars)

[46] This issue is both significant and problematic as Mr. Duquette throughout this entire litigation failed to produce evidence of valuation for T.H.E. Medical and his interest in that company as of the date of separation. Notwithstanding court orders compelling him to undertake such valuation, he has steadfastly refused to do so even to the date of this trial. In addition, on his questioning, he agreed that the valuation was in the process of being prepared. In fact, the evidence is that such valuation was not being prepared and much to the frustration of Ms. Duquette, has never been prepared.

[47] While it might be suggested that there is no evidence to establish the value of T.H.E. Medical and Mr. Duquette’s interest in that company as of the date of separation (May 2007), I do not accept that such is the state of affairs in the case at bar.

[48] Rather, our case is very much similar to the case of Gonawati v. Teitsson, a decision of the Court of Appeal reported at [2002] O.J. No. 861.

[49] In Gonawati, the Court held at para. 3:

The Appellant adduced no credible evidence to rebut the evidence of the Respondent as to the value of his beneficial interest. It was therefore open to the trial judge to accept the Respondent’s evidence as to value and thereby calculate the equalization payment as contemplated in the Order of O’Connell J.

[50] I find myself in the same position as the trial judge in Gonawati.

[51] I find that on the totality of the evidence before me, I am in a position to determine on a “best evidence” basis the valuation of Mr. Duquette’s interest in MEF as of the date of separation for the purposes of calculating net family property equalization.

[52] To better understand this issue, some contextual background is important.

[53] From Ms. Duquette’s perspective, her net family property is relatively simple. She was the sole owner of the matrimonial home. Originally, the matrimonial home was mortgaged for $80,000 and over time, for the investment of T.H.E. Medical, the property was further mortgaged so that at the time of sale, the mortgage was $205,340.45. At the date of separation, in accordance with Exhibit 6, Ms. Duquette’s net family property statement dated May 16, 2013, the mortgage was in the amount of $225,000.

[54] Ms. Duquette had received an offer for the purchase of the home from a private individual. There was a $10,000 bonus available to her if she could close by the end of December 2009. Mr. Duquette refused to co-operate. Therefore Ms. Duquette lost the bonus and had to attend court to obtain a court order for the sale to proceed. The sale was concluded and monies were held in trust from April 2010 until August 2010. All of this is evidenced by her real estate lawyer’s reporting letters and documentation found at Exhibit 1A Tab 14. The net sale proceeds held in trust was the amount of $227,961.65 on the sale of the matrimonial home. The transaction closed on May 31, 2010. However, those monies were received by Ms. Duquette in August of 2010 only after she obtained the Order for payment from Justice Mullins dated July 22, 2010.

[55] In reviewing with Ms. Duquette her Net Family Property Statement (Exhibit 6) she accepted Mr. Duquette’s valuation for his 2006 Harley Davidson at $25,000 and an ATV at $3,000. She valued a van at the date of separation that she drove in the amount of $15,000.

[56] She further accepted Mr. Duquette’s valuation of an RRSP at CIBC in the amount of $50,000 although there was never any evidence produced to prove that amount.

[57] Ms. Duquette had a pension through HOOP in the amount of $30,000 which was established through evidence found at Exhibit 1A Tab 12 (see Pension Calculation by Dilkes, Jeffery and Associates Inc., Consulting Actuaries dated June 20, 2011). The notional tax on the pension was $6,000.

[58] As for the matrimonial home, it was valued at $425,000 with a corresponding mortgage debt of $225,000.

[59] At the date of separation, there were two lots in her name with a value of $30,000 also accounted for in her Net Family Property Statement.

[60] I find nothing problematic at all in respect of the calculations set out in Exhibit 6 in respect of Ms. Duquette’s Net Family Property.

[61] The same definitely cannot be said in respect of Mr. Duquette’s Net Family Property. The significant issue in this regard is the sale and his interest in T.H.E. Medical in 2008. As noted, he was to obtain a valuation of T.H.E. Medical but he never did so. He had over two years to do pursuant to Court Order. While he spoke of completing the valuation, he never did so.

[62] What we do know about the valuation of T.H.E. Medical and his interest in that company comes from the evidence of Ms. Duquette, Ian MacInnis and the productions and documentation generated in respect of the sale together with admissions made by Mr. Duquette on his questioning.

[63] I am satisfied that on a review of the totality of the evidence, that there is good and sufficient evidence to establish by way of “best evidence” the value of T.H.E. Medical and Mr. Duquette’s interest on the sale of that company in 2008 for the purpose of valuation on the date of separation.

[64] Ms. Duquette testified that T.H.E. Medical was created by her husband and another person. Initially it was run out of the matrimonial home in Guelph in January of 1994. The company moved to a small office in Toronto and thereafter to Barrie. Once located in Barrie, the company underwent successive moves as it continued to grow.

[65] T.H.E. Medical manufactured and sold medical equipment including patient handling systems. The primary clients were hospitals and nursing homes throughout North America.

[66] In the last five years before the sale, Mr. Duquette had two other equal partners.

[67] She testified that in February of 2007 she was told by Mr. Duquette that the business was sold. There were buyers that were interested in buying the company. He told her that he was looking at a 50 million dollar deal at that time. She did not know what actually happened until October of 2008. At that time, she was told by Mr. Duquette that he had received $800,000 in 2008 as his portion on the sale. However, in November 2009, she learned that he had received approximately two million dollars US.

[68] Prior to separation, Ms. Duquette testified that she did not know how much he made and that his income did not include tax deductions.

[69] She went on to testify about the documents supporting the sale of T.H.E. Medical. These documents were received from Mr. Duquette only after court motion.

[70] Ms. Duquette was taken to the Amended and Restated Stock Purchase and Subscription Agreement on the purchase of T.H.E. Medical shares by RecoverCare, LLC found at Exhibit 1D Tab 63-2. She read from the preamble which provides:

This Agreement amends and restates in its entirety the Stock Purchase and Subscription Agreement, dated as of February 21, 2008 by and among the parties.

[71] At page 11 of the Amended Agreement at para. 2.1 the purchase price was stated in the amount of 15 million dollars and at para. 2.1(2) the purchase price involved the delivery of two Promissory Notes.

[72] The evidence is that the original negotiated price for T.H.E. Medical was 44 million dollars.

[73] In regard to this value, Mr. Duquette received certain assets including a lump sum payment and two Promissory Notes.

[74] She was taken to a Funds Flow Memorandum dated September 30, 2008 which disclosed that Mr. Duquette had received the sum of $2,896,852.65 in US funds. (See Exhibit 1E Tab 19) She further identified Mr. Duquette’s signature on a receipt document whereby he acknowledged the receipt of said funds. (See Exhibit 1E Tab 21) To the best of her knowledge Mr. Duquette did receive this amount. Further, Duquette on his questioning acknowledged the receipt of 2.8 million dollars in cash in September 2008. (See Transcript of Questioning of Noel Duquette January 23, 2013 at p. 48).

[75] In addition, the corporate documents also contain an Acknowledgement and Direction regarding Promissory Notes (Exhibit 1E Tab 28 – B whereby Mr. Duquette acknowledged the receipt of two Promissory Notes totalling six million dollars as constituting part of the purchase price.

[76] The evidence establishes that T.H.E. Medical was to ensure a certain revenue stream for the 2008 and 2009 year in order to maintain the purchase price of 44 million. In the event that it did not continue that revenue stream, there was to be a recalculation of the balance owing secured by the Promissory Notes.

[77] T.H.E. Medical did not maintain the revenue stream and in 2009, the amount of sale price was reduced to 18 million dollars. This is evidenced by First Amendment to Amended and Restated Stock Purchase and Subscription Agreement and Acknowledgements found at Exhibit 1C Tab 4. The third recital on the first page of that document sets out a final valuation of 18 million dollars US and a cancellation of the Promissory Notes in return for $400,000 paid to each shareholder. The evidence was that Mr. Duquette received the sum of $400,000 on the cancellation of the Promissory Notes in accordance with his admission on his questioning. (See p. 49 Question 379 - 398).

[78] The first amendment document at preamble 3 states that the valuation used at the time of closing was 32 million dollars US. It also goes on to provide that the valuation was reduced to 18 million dollars US and that the Promissory Notes were cancelled for payment in the amount of $400,000. At page 2 of that document, there is further provision that Mr. Duquette remained a 12.5 percent shareholder in T.H.E. Medical.

[79] Although Mr. Duquette in his questioning testified that there was a dilution of his interest so that the 12.5 percent was reduced to four percent, he never produced any documentation to support the dilution of his shares. Although he gave an undertaking to provide evidence in this regard, like many things he promised, Mr. Duquette never did produce any such documentation.

[80] The evidence is clear that the readjusted purchase price for the sale of 51 percent of T.H.E. Medical was 18 million dollars US of which Mr. Duquette received his one-third share in the amount of $2,896,852.65 US together with a payment of $400,000 US for the cancellation of the Promissory Notes which totalled six million dollars.

[81] On behalf of Ms. Duquette, it is conceded that the 18 million dollar figure in Canadian dollars (rather than the 44 million dollar US figure) ought to be used to establish the value of Mr. Duquette’s interest in T.H.E. Medical even though her figure was 27 months post-separation. It is the 18 million dollar figure that she uses on which to establish the value of the shares retained (12.5 percent) as well.

[82] I accept the evidence of Ms. Duquette that in February of 2007 her husband, Mr. Duquette had disclosed to her the sale of T.H.E. Medical for 50 million dollars. While this was not the final purchase price, he certainly did not receive $800,000 for his interest on the sale as he had told Ms. Duquette in 2008. It was only November of 2009 that he had received approximately two million dollars US.

[83] For the purposes of Ms. Duquette’s Net Family Property Statement, Mr. Duquette received the amount of $2,896,853.

[84] Returning to Exhibit 6 being the NFP Statement of Ms. Duquette, at para. 4(e) she sets out the valuation of the sale of shares as at the date of separation. We know that Mr. Duquette received the sum of $2,896,853 as well as $400,000. There was some question as to whether or not it was $300,000 or $400,000. Ms. Duquette has used the $300,000 figure added to the initial proceeds on the sale less $500,000 which Mr. Duquette claimed that he paid in tax or was required to pay in tax without any evidence. This produced the valuation on the sale of Mr. Duquette’s shares in the amount of $2,696,853. The sale of the shares owned by Mr. Duquette (apart from retention of 12.5 percent of the shares) in T.H.E. Medical is the best evidence of the value of those shares as of the date of separation. Mr. Duquette had discussed the sale with his wife in February of 2007. A sale of this magnitude would not have been entertained without previous discussions and negotiations between the parties.

[85] I accept the evidence of Ian MacInnis, partner at the firm of Fogler Rubinoff who acted for Mr. Duquette and others in respect of the sale of shares of T.H.E. Medical. A retainer was signed by Mr. Duquette on February 13, 2008. Mr. MacInnis confirmed that he had been consulted by Mr. Duquette prior to that date. The first contact by Mr. Duquette was in January of 2008. A letter of intent was provided to his firm dated January 24, 2008. The Letter of Intent did speak to a purchase price of $22,950,000 for 51 percent of the shares in T.H.E. Medical, assuming closing.

[86] Although Mr. MacInnis did not testify as to the course of negotiations between vendor and purchaser, the letter of intent dated January 24, 2008 would have presupposed negotiations and dealings between the parties. It is reasonable to infer from this evidence that negotiations and discussions for a transaction of this magnitude would not have happened overnight and would have been conducted at various points in time throughout the year 2007.

[87] I find that the totality of the evidence even allowing Mr. Duquette the payment of the Promissory Notes in the amount of $300,000 as opposed to $400,000 and even giving him a deduction for payment of $500,000 in tax (unsubstantiated), the value of the sale of shares as at the date of separation is the amount of $2,696,853.

[88] I also find that the value of his remaining 12.5 percent shares in T.H.E. Medical is also based on the sale price of 18 million dollars. His 12.5 percent interest in those shares on the date of separation is the sum of $2,250,000. I find that his total business interests as set out in Part 4(e) of Exhibit 6 Net Family Property Statement totals the sum of $4,946,853.

[89] I accept the calculation set out in Ms. Duquette’s Net Family Property Statement supported by all of the evidence wherein Mr. Duquette is to pay Mrs. Duquette the sum of $2,382,926.50.

[90] Mr. Duquette delivered a sworn Affidavit dated June 14, 2012 to counsel for Mrs. Duquette (Exhibit 5). At para. 5 of that Affidavit, Mr. Duquette swears:

The sale involved two years of negotiation. Two law firms acted on behalf of the vendors to complete the transaction in or about September of 2008.

[91] I take from Mr. Duquette’s own Affidavit that the two years of negotiation regarding the sale of his shares in T.H.E. Medical would have commenced as early as sometime in 2006. All of the evidence is consistent that even before the date of separation, serious discussions were taking place to sell 51 percent of T.H.E. Medical for millions of dollars.

[92] Accordingly, I find that Mr. Duquette shall pay an equalization payment to Mrs. Duquette in the amount of $2,382,926.50. This amount is reduced by the sum of $175,000 having been paid by Mr. Duquette. The sum of $175,000 represents payments of $100,000, $50,000 and $25,000 paid by him. Therefore the net equalization payment owing by Mr. Duquette to Mrs. Duquette after having been given such credit is the sum of $2,207,926.50. I also order payment of prejudgment interest by Mr. Duquette on that sum at the rate of three percent from the date that these proceedings were commenced on January 10, 2010 to May 7, 2013 in the amount of $220,127.25 as calculated by Ms. Duquette’s counsel. With pre-judgment interest at three percent ($220,127.25), the total amount owing is $2,428,053.75 (to May 7, 2013).

(f) Mr. Duquette’s Income for Ongoing Child Support and Spousal Support

[93] A further problem arising from Mr. Duquette’s failure to make proper financial disclosure relates to a determination of his income. This is of particular importance when calculating ongoing child support and spousal support.

[94] In his financial statements, Mr. Duquette stated his income at $75,000. In his questioning, his evidence on income was a moving target. It shifted anywhere from not taking any income to just starting to take income to actually receiving income in the amount of $75,000 plus his truck. The evidence of Dan O’Hara of Pro Hung Door Products established that Mr. Duquette invested $250,000 in Pro Hung Door Products. This business customizes blank doors from a manufacturer for retail stores and clients. This business which is a limited company produces a quick kit for installing doors. Mr. Duquette invested $250,000 into this business. He was to receive shares for 30 percent of the company but these shares were never issued. There was no shareholder agreement with Mr. Duquette. The $250,000 is reflected as a loan to the company on the company’s tax return. This is the only document which evidences Mr. Duquette’s investment of $250,000 in Pro Hung Doors.

[95] Mr. O’Hara testified that Mr. Duquette receives $70,000 per year in salary which is not paid to him personally. Rather, it is paid to his holding company which we know to be a company by the name of Cayennne. The business pays for Mr. Duquette’s vehicle.

[96] Mr. O’Hara testified that Mr. Duquette heads up the exterior door part of the company. On average he works five days a week at least six hours a day and does some work outside of the shop. He is unaware that Mr. Duquette has another business. Mr. Duquette works approximately 49 weeks of the year. He is unaware of any trips to Europe by Mr. Duquette.

[97] As for Pro Hung Doors, the company is making money which is put right back into the company. Revenues have increased from 3.5 million dollars when Mr. Duquette bought in to currently around seven million dollars. Since 2010, revenues have doubled.

[98] While Mr. Duquette’s documentation, his evidence on questioning and the evidence of Mr. O’Hara suggest that Mr. Duquette’s annual income is between $70,000 and $75,000 plus his truck, Ms. Duquette submits that this is not his true income. She claims he is significantly underemployed and that his imputed income ought to be upwards of $200,000 annually. I agree with Ms. Duquette’s position regarding Mr. Duquette’s imputed income for the following reasons. Mr. Duquette is a sophisticated entrepreneur and businessman. He is capable of earning significant income if he was not underemployed. The last information that we have in respect of Mr. Duquette’s income can be found at his 2011 Income Tax Return (Exhibit 1A Tab 29) in the amount of $77,136.21. This figure is not particularly useful given Mr. O’Hara’s evidence that all of Mr. Duquette’s income from Pro Hung Doors is going to a holding company called Cayenne. No one knows what Cayenne does or what it pays to Mr. Duquette. We have no income tax return for the year 2012 and no financial information in respect of his income regarding this year to date.

[99] We know that Mr. Duquette has not received shares in Pro Hung Doors and has not insisted that those shares be delivered to him although there was some talk earlier on that the issue of shares was to be finalized. It was suggested that no shares were issued to prevent Ms. Duquette from being able to seize them. Given the evidence heard at trial, that makes considerable sense.

[100] The evidence shows that Mr. Duquette has not been forthcoming and has not made full disclosure in respect of his income. Even though he had been ordered repeatedly by the court to make proper financial disclosure about his income, he has not done so.

[101] What we do know is that Mr. Duquette is a talented businessman/entrepreneur. He has extensive experience in sales and growing a business. While with T.H.E. Medical his annual income was over $200,000 CDN. He along with others built a company that sold for 18 million dollars. He knows how to make money.

[102] In his questioning, Mr. Duquette also testified that he recently attended a digital marketing conference which suggests that he has other interests. However, there is no conclusive evidence that he is engaged in any new ventures other than retaining his 12.5 percent interest in T.H.E. Medical and the $250,000 investment in Pro Hung Doors for 30 percent of the shares of that business.

[103] Section 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines provides:

19 Imputing Income –

(1) The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include the following:

(a) the spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of a child of the marriage or any child under the age of majority or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the spouse; …

(d) it appears that income has been diverted which would affect the level of child support to be determined under these Guidelines;

(e) the spouse’s property is not reasonably utilized to generate income;

(f) the spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so.

[104] I find that Mr. Duquette is intentionally underemployed. He has the knowledge, talent and experience as a businessman/entrepreneur to be making more annual income than what he has disclosed. He diverts income to his holding company Cayenne. Because he has not provided income information when under a legal obligation to do so, we do not know how the diversion of that income affects the level of child support to be determined under the Guidelines. Even without pursuing that consideration further, the evidence sufficiently supports the imputation of income to Mr. Duquette in the amount of $200,000 plus $15,768 for his vehicle for a total of $215,768.

[105] Justice Wildman had also imputed income at $200,000 based on Mr. Duquette’s 2009 income of $217,000 from employment and dividends and capital gains for a total of $289,000. Mr. Duquette’s 2010 Income Tax Return showed a dramatic drop in total income in the amount of $56,905.93. His total income for 2011 as disclosed on his Income Tax Return was $77,136.21. There is no 2012 Income Tax Return and there is no financial information regarding his income for 2013. The wild fluctuations in reported income over the last few years does not detract from my finding that Mr. Duquette’s income should be imputed in the amount of $215,768. Throughout, he has not been co-operative in respect of financial disclosure regarding his true income and accordingly, this court finds that his imputed income is marginally increased from the income imputed by Justice Wildman.

[106] I now come to ongoing child support and spousal support.

[107] I find that the best way to proceed regarding child and spousal support is to continue the interim order of Justice Wildman dated February 2, 2012 from June 1, 2013 to August 31, 2013 as a final order. (See Order of Wildman J. dated February 2, 2012 at para. 18).

[108] Commencing September 1, 2013 Justice Wildman’s order is replaced by this order which is a Final Order regarding ongoing child support and spousal support obligations for payment by Mr. Duquette.

[109] Counsel for Ms. Duquette has provided DivorceMate calculations based upon Mr. Duquette’s imputed income of $215,768 which includes his vehicle. The DivorceMate calculations also take into account Ms. Duquette’s employment income at $60,000 which I find appropriate together with Section 7 expenses and tuition credits. Based upon Spencer and Ellie residing with Ms. Duquette full time, it also involves Zacchary and Lucas residing with Ms. Duquette during the summer, I find the table child support based on imputed income of $215,768 to Mr. Duquette to be in the amount of $3,266. As a result of Mr. Duquette’s income being imputed in the amount of $215,768, commencing September 1, 2013, he shall pay section 3 Table Child Support for Spencer and Ellie residing fulltime with Ms. Duquette and Zachary and Lucas residing during the summer with her in the amount of $3,266 per month and every month thereafter.

[110] As submitted by counsel for Ms. Duquette and based on relative incomes, I find Mr. Duquette shall pay 60 percent of the children’s Section 7 expenses exceeding $200.00 per annum. Further, he shall pay 60 percent of a child’s post-secondary education expenses to a maximum of $22,000 per child per academic year for a University program and a maximum of $18,000 per child per academic year for a College program. The above expenses include tuition, rent or residence, food, books, travel, clothing, spending money and living expenses for the academic year. In the event a child is attending such post-secondary education program, Mr. Duquette may request confirmation of attendance and specifics of the child’s major expenses from Ms. Duquette and Ms. Duquette will answer all reasonable requests in this regard. Ms. Duquette shall provide Mr. Duquette with documentation supporting the amount he shall pay.

[111] As for spousal support, based on Mr. Duquette’s imputed income of $215,768, he shall pay the amount of $2,152 monthly commencing September 1, 2013. This is the midrange in respect of the SSAG DivorceMate calculation “with child support” formula. I consider this amount of spousal support to be fair and reasonable. Further, I find that Ms. Duquette has established need for spousal support in all of her circumstances. The evidence is compelling that Mr. Duquette has the ability to pay spousal support.

(g) Enforcement

[112] In dealing with this issue, Ms. Duquette is understandably concerned about how she will be paid the amount owing to her for equalization given Mr. Duquette’s past conduct in this litigation. She is concerned that Mr. Duquette will dissipate his assets in order to frustrate her attempt to be paid what she is owed.

[113] Ms. Duquette’s concerns are supported by the chronology of events culminating in Mr. Duquette’s pleadings being struck on March 7, 2013.

[114] Ms. Duquette has filed at trial an Endorsement/Orders Brief updated as of March 7, 2013. Her counsel prepared a chart of the Orders and brief summary of each as follows:

April 22, 2012

• Mr. Duquette had not filed an Answer although served in early January, 2010.
• Mrs. Duquette brought a Motion to be allowed to sell the matrimonial home and have the Respondent’s consent dispensed with.
• Mr. Duquette attended and requested time. He indicated he was meeting with Mr. Winter and the Court required that Mr. Winter be called in the Court room.
• Order for the sale of the home.
• Further Order for child support fixed in the amount of $2,700. Mr. Duquette had verbally expressed his income to the Court with no financial statement or any other disclosure.
• It should be noted that in 2010, Mr. Duquette’s income had exceeded $289,000 (USD)

July 22, 2010

• Note – This had originally been returnable on June 6th but Mr. Duquette did not hire Mr. Winter. Mr. Duquette also argued that he was out of town on June 6th – but he had actually picked up the children on that date.
• Justice Mullins was concerned in regard to the Respondent not attending as he was on another “business trip”.
• Mr. Winter had not been hired and Mr. Kowalsky was apparently hired but not available.
• Funds were released from the matrimonial home to the Applicant.
• Disclosure was ordered.
• The matter was adjourned to September 21, 2010

September 21, 2010

• Case Conference
• Disclosure Order made again
• Justice Olah agrees that there had been a failure to provide disclosure and value the business. Support had not been paid to that date.

November 10, 2010

• Justice Wildman
• Disclosure outstanding and had not been fulfilled. After a full day of disclosure arguments a four page endorsement was made by Her Honour
• Mr. Duquette was representing himself.
• Several relevant Orders were ordered including the provision of tax returns (direction to Mr. Palmer of Grant Thornton to provide the tax returns – but he had never been retained), corporate information from T.H.E. Medical and a preservation Order.
• It ought to be noted that at that time the Applicant did not have the sale documents and her evidence at Trial will be that Mr. Duquette advised he only received $800,000 for the sale of T.H.E. Medical. Obviously, the preservation Order and the quantum included therein of $500,000 was sorely underestimated due to the submissions from Mr. Duquette himself.

December 15, 2011

• January, 2011 to December 15, 2011 – the parties entered mediation
• December 15, 2011 – return matter to Court for conference.
• Order for the College payments for Zachary (2011-2012 academic year).
• The Respondent required to produce all outstanding disclosure as the disclosure had been outstanding for over a year. The Court indicated there is nothing in the material to reasonably explain why his tax returns, for example, have not yet been produced.
• The Court also ordered that should the Respondent fail to comply with the disclosure issue the Applicant may move to have his Answer struck.

February 2, 2012

• Justice Wildman found that the disclosure had not been provided and this was as a result of a request for Mr. Duquette’s pleadings to be struck.
• A full day was undertaken in this regard.
• Support was revisited and ordered now that Mr. Duquette’s income had finally been somewhat assessed.
• The history of the Endorsements was reviewed by Justice Wildman who indicated that “Mr. Duquette sold his shares in the company for millions of dollars. He retains an interest in that company and has also an interest in another. He lives in a mortgage free home that has been valued at one million dollars. He has a Porsche and paid cash for a $167,000 Audi. Yet he hasn’t provided a valuation of the company nor an ITR since 2009 nor such simple disclosure as the previously ordered bank statements, RRSP and credit card statements. He has allowed his one million dollar life insurance policy to lapse….Enough is enough. Mr. Duquette has to start to take this litigation seriously.”
• The Court did not Order his pleadings to be struck but placed specific obligations on Mr. Duquette who did not follow same.
• Child and spousal support was fixed.

May 17, 2012

• In April, 2012, a motion to dispense with Mr. Duquette’s pleading was served with approximately six weeks’ notice to Mr. Duquette in the hopes of him actually dealing with the outstanding matters. He did not attend on May 17, 2012
• The Court ordered that Mr. Duquette pay $101,266 for retroactive support pursuant to the Order of Justice Wildman and the $20,000 he had not paid for interim disbursements and costs
• A warrant was issued for Mr. Duquette’s arrest.
• The amounts to be paid ($101,266) were to be paid from Mr. Duquette’s TD account.
• Matter adjourned for a finding of contempt on June 14, 2012.
• It should be noted that on the attempt to enforce the amount of $101,266 as against Mr. Duquette’s TD Waterhouse account, it became apparent that Mr. Duquette had removed those funds in March, 2012.

June 14, 2012

• Mr. Duquette returned some of the money from the TD account (a bank draft in the amount of $700,000) but has never accounted for the balance.
• At that time the balance of the issues were adjourned to Collingwood on July 22, 2012. This was to review the compliance with disclosure Orders and determine contempt.
• [Note – that although Mr. Duquette had indicated that $700,000 had been withdrawn, earlier he had withdrawn over $800,000 as well to deplete the account, in full. The evidence was not known in June, 2012.

July 12, 2012

• There was no agreement in regard to the disclosure or what should or should not have been provided.
• Mr. Duquette had obtained counsel.
• The Respondent was late to Court but the Court held “to Mr. Duquette’s credit he is attending as well to gathering together what he is lacking over the long and difficult history of this matter. However, I do not find it credible that Mr. Duquette was not aware of the support Order. Both child and spousal support has not been paid.” - significant arrears were existing at that point.

October 16, 2012

• Case Conference held – no result was reached – matter adjourned for questioning and for hearing of the contempt Motion in November, 2012 – the November trial sittings

December 7, 2012

• The contempt motion was called for a one day hearing.
• Counsel for the Respondent was “out of the country”.
• The Respondent did not attend.
• The Court made an Order.

January 15, 2013

• Mr. Menear removed from record.

February 1, 2013

• Settlement Conference heard with Justice McDermot

March 7, 2013

• Pleadings struck

[115] In addition, currently there are costs outstanding in the amount of $8,900 from the interim orders as follows:

Order dated July 12, 2012 - $1,500

Order dated December 7, 2012 - $ 400

Order dated March 7, 2013 - $7,000

[116] The summary shows that Mr. Duquette has been significantly unco-operative and non-compliant in respect of court orders to make financial disclosure. He has adopted a particular strategy from the outset where he was not going to make any meaningful disclosure in respect of his income or his valuation of shares in T.H.E. Medical. This strategy could only be devised to frustrate Ms. Duquette. As noted by Justice Wildman in her endorsement of February 2, 2012 “Enough is enough. Mr. Duquette has to start to take this litigation seriously”. He was given every opportunity to make disclosure. However, he dragged his feet. He delayed by changing counsel numerous times, by not attending the court when he should have and by simply protracting the matter to gain advantage.

[117] Further, Ms. Duquette gave evidence in respect of monies in Mr. Duquette’s possession. Originally he had told her that he had received $800,000. Then he told her that he had spent the money by purchasing an Audi R8 for $172,827.85 for which he paid cash (see Exhibit 1A Tab 36). He purchased a home valued at $1,050,000 (see Exhibit 1A Tab 31). He has extensively renovated the property. He still owns the property as evidenced by the Transfer found at Exhibit 1A Tab 34.

[118] Ms. Duquette testified that Mr. Duquette has traveled extensively – three times to Europe, a trip to the Caribbean and other places. He has purchased “toys” such as Seadoos and Skidoos. He invested $250,000 in Pro Hung Doors.

[119] The sum of $588,000 has been paid into court pursuant to a court order which also provides for non-dissipation regarding assets which includes his house. There is a “hold” put on Mr. Duquette’s account at the TD Bank. Justice Wildman’s order dated November 10, 2010 contained a preservation order component. At para. 26 of the order, Mr. Duquette was to keep at least $500,000 in a TD Bank account as well as his unencumbered house located at 220 Tiny Beaches Road North, Perkinsfield, Ontario. He was not to sell, dispose of, mortgage or deplete either the $500,000 or the house pending settlement or further order of the court. He was restrained from depleting, withdrawing, transferring, encumbering or otherwise pledging as security or otherwise the sum of $500,000 as part of TD Bank account referred to in para. 27 of said order. Justice Wildman’s order was served on TD but Mr. Duquette had given the court the wrong account number.

[120] Ms. Duquette was taken through Mr. Duquette’s bank records at TD Bank found at Exhibit 1B at Tab 42. At that Tab can be found the account activity in respect of Mr. Duquette’s account at TD Waterhouse, account number 7H7765A which is a Canadian Cash Account. The account activity records commence at November 27, 2009. They end with an entry dated November 6, 2012.

[121] Ms. Duquette’s counsel prepared a synopsis of Mr. Duquette’s account marked as Exhibit 3. Exhibit 3 for period December 18, 2009 to November 6, 2012 shows a total of web banking withdrawals in the amount of $390,000. For the same period, cheques issued by firm total the sum of $1,186,473.26.

[122] Ms. Duquette reviewed both the synopsis and all of the account activity records and testified that Mr. Duquette did make numerous withdrawals from November 27, 2009 to the last entry of November 6, 2012. What the records disclose is that on March 1, 2012 Mr. Duquette withdrew $842,692.97 contrary to the court order leaving a cash balance of $200. By November 6, 2012 the balance in that account was $6.50.

[123] Also at Exhibit 1B Tab 42 can be found Mr. Duquette’s statement in respect of consolidated Canadian account number 7H7765 for a period November 1 to November 30, 2009. As at November 30, 2009 the market value of Mr. Duquette’s total portfolio was in the amount of $1,529,009.23. The point of this evidence is that Mr. Duquette withdrew all of the money out of his TD account without any tracing or accounting save and except for the $588,000 that was paid into court.

[124] There is approximately $800,000 that has never been accounted for. That is why Ms. Duquette seeks an order pursuant to the Family Law Act and the Courts of Justice Act that the property owned by Mr. Duquette at 220 Tiny Beaches Road, Perkinsfield, Ontario be transferred to her. She has no confidence that prior to this transfer Mr. Duquette if he finds out that such has occurred may destroy the property. Therefore and in addition to such transfer, she seeks a Writ of Possession.

[125] Apart from the $588,000 paid into court, I find that the only other asset that Ms. Duquette can look to in partial satisfaction of the amounts due and owing to her from Mr. Duquette for support arrears, spousal support, equalization and costs is Mr. Duquette’s house located at 220 Tiny Beaches Road, Perkinsfield, Ontario.

[126] For these reasons, I order that Mr. Duquette’s interest in the lands and premises located at 220 Tiny Beaches Road, Perkinsfield, Ontario more particularly described as LT11 PL699 Tiny; PTLT 10 PL699 Tiny as in RO402720; S/T & T/W RO402720; Township of Tiny County of Simcoe, shall be forthwith transferred to Ms. Duquette, in whole, pursuant to s.7(i), 9(d)(i) and 10(1) of the Part 1 of the Family Law Act and s.100 of the Courts of Justice Act, in partial satisfaction of the amounts due and owing to her from Mr. Duquette in the amounts I have previously described. A Writ of Possession in form attached as Schedule “A” shall be issued and the Sheriff shall forthwith serve the Writ of Possession together with a copy of these Reasons for Judgement and Final Order.

[127] As for the funds currently paid into court, all funds (and accumulated interest, if any, paid into court shall forthwith be paid as a credit to Ms. Duquette as partial satisfaction of the equalization payment pursuant to s.72.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. As Mr. Duquette’s pleadings are struck, the time prescribed for an appeal is not in issue and the funds shall be released forthwith.

(h) Costs

[128] Pursuant to rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, Ms. Duquette as the successful party is presumed entitled to costs.

[129] In fixing costs, factors set out at rule 24(11) are to be taken into account. Those factors are as follows:

(a) The importance, complexity or difficulty of the issues;

(b) the reasonableness or unreasonableness of each party’s behaviour in the case;

(c) the lawyer’s rates;

(d) the time properly spent on the case, including conversations between the lawyer and the party or witnesses, drafting documents and correspondence, attempts to settle, preparation, hearing, argument and preparation and signature of the order;

(e) expenses properly paid or payable; and

(f) any other relevant matter.

[130] In deciding whether a party has behaved reasonably or unreasonably rule 24(5) provides that the court shall examine (a) the party’s behaviour in relation to the issues from the time they arose, including whether the party made an offer to settle; (b) the reasonableness of any offer the party made; and (c) any offer the party withdrew or failed to accept.

[131] In this case, Mr. Duquette made no offer to settle although prior to the commencement of these proceedings, Ms. Duquette made numerous and unsuccessful attempts to resolve the issues with Mr. Duquette. This is not surprising given Mr. Duquette’s overall strategy to draw the matter out, to delay, to be non-compliant and to frustrate Ms. Duquette by not making the financial disclosure that he should have made in accordance with the Family Law Rules and in accordance with court orders.

[132] In considering the factors under rule 24(11) the issues were numerous, important to the parties and complex. The complexity was created to a very large extent and compounded by the unreasonable conduct of Mr. Duquette.

[133] His behaviour was unreasonable as evidenced by his conduct throughout summarized and reflected in the evidence and in the numerous endorsements and court orders in this case. It is absolutely clear that he was given every opportunity by the court to make the disclosure required before the striking of his pleadings but Mr. Duquette had other ideas. Even to the date of trial, he did not make the ordered disclosure which caused this court to consider all of the evidence led by Ms. Duquette in arriving at the valuation of his interest in T.H.E. Medical as of the date of separation, the value of his retained shares of 12.5 percent in T.H.E. Medical as of the date of separation and his imputed income.

[134] I find that if there ever was a case that required an award of costs on a full recovery basis, it is this one.

[135] I find that Ms. Duquette in all the circumstances supported by the evidence and findings contained herein is entitled to costs on a full recovery basis.

[136] That having been said, I have reviewed the Bill of Costs dated May 22, 2013 prepared by counsel for Ms. Duquette. On a full recovery basis, costs are sought in the amount of $37,833.81 (fees plus HST in the amount of $26,489 together with disbursements plus HST in the amount of $7,901.24). In support of the Bill of Costs, counsel has provided me with a lengthy computer printout regarding all services rendered for trial preparation and trial, statement of experience of lawyers and clerks working on this file, copies of accounts and trust statements.

[137] Insofar as the rates of lawyers and clerks working on this file, I will not list them but I find that they are appropriate. As for the time spent on this matter, there is no doubt that considerable time was spent, much of it caused by Mr. Duquette’s obstinacy and unreasonable behaviour. Significant time was spent pursuing Mr. Duquette through numerous court attendances where he did not attend on many occasions or attended as a self-represented litigant having either discharged or retained a number of his counsel.

[138] I fix fees plus HST in the amount of $26,489 together with disbursements plus HST in the amount of $7,901.24. Total costs are fixed in the amount of $37,833.81 payable by Mr. Duquette to Ms. Duquette. Such costs are enforceable as support. In all the circumstances, I find these total costs fair, reasonable and proportional.

[139] In addition, Mr. Duquette shall pay all interim Orders for Costs outstanding as of the date of this Order in the amount of $8,900 also enforced as support.

(i) Divorce

[140] In accordance with signed Divorce Order, divorce is hereby granted.

DISPOSITION

[141] A final order shall issue in favour of Ms. Duquette based upon these Reasons.

DiTOMASO J.

Released: May 27, 2013