COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-97597
DATE: 20230221
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Li Jung Huang
Wen Chin Hu, for the Applicant
Applicant
- and -
Tzu-Tsung Yang
Eva Mak, for the Respondent
Respondent
HEARD: December 6, 7, 8, 9, 2022
SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MANDHANE J.
INTRODUCTION
[1] The parties appeared before me for a four-day trial. The sole issue was equalization of net family property. I released my "Reasons for Judgment" on January 9, 2023: Huang v. Yang, 2023 ONSC 230. Based on my findings of fact, the parties were encouraged to come to an agreement on the final equalization payment owing and on the matter of costs: para. 38. They were unable to do so.
Final Equalization Payment
[2] The Applicant/Wife, Li Jung Huang, says that she owes the Respondent/Husband, Tzu-Tsung Yang, an equalization payment of $523,478, while he says that she owes him $639,398.
[3] To arrive at her figure, the Wife included the balance from a Taiwan Business Bank Co. Ltd. account (#48262767380) ("Bank Account") as the Husband's asset in her NFP. She says that the Bank Account was worth $231,837 on the valuation date. The Wife notes that the Bank Account statements were identified by the Husband at trial and entered as exhibits. She says that the Husband declared the Bank Account balance as an asset in his Financial Statement sworn November 18, 2022.
[4] I reject this argument. My Reasons for Judgment were based on the totality of the evidence at trial. In particular, I relied heavily on an Agreed Statement of Facts that was filed as exhibit 55 at trial. In it, the parties agreed that the Bank Account had a negative balance of $231,837 on the valuation date. I took that figure into account, along with all the other information contained in exhibit 55, to conclude at paragraph 9 that, "In terms of liabilities, the parties agree that the Husband had…other debts totaling $291,440."
[5] The Wife owes the Husband an equalization payment of $639,398.
COSTS
[6] The Wife claims costs in the amount of $22,211.20. Her counsel has six years of experience and was retained on September 5, 2022. Her Bill of Costs includes fees for settlement negotiations, and for preparing and attending four days of trial. The Husband claims costs of $73,240.54. His counsel has 28 years of experience, and her Bill of Costs includes fee to prepare pleadings, attend conferences, conduct questioning, and attend at trial.
[7] I have a broad discretion when it comes to awarding costs: Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 131(1). To properly exercise my discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, I must consider and apply Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, to answer the following questions:
a) Who was the more successful party, or was success divided? (Rule 24(1), (6))
b) Has the successful party behaved unreasonably, including in relation to offers to settle, such that they should be deprived of some or all of their costs? (Rule 24(4), (5))
c) How much should be paid in costs considering the importance and complexity of the matter, on the one hand, and the reasonableness and proportionality of the party's behaviour, time spent, fees, expenses, offers, etc.? (Rule 24(12)
[8] At trial, the Wife claimed that the Husband owed her an equalization payment of $71,131, while the Husband claimed that the Wife owed him an equalization payment of $856,019. While there was some mixed success on the factual issues, the Husband was more successful. He established that the Wife owed him a substantial equalization payment. He is presumptively entitled to costs.
[9] In terms of offers, the Wife made formal offers on August 22, October 24, and November 7, 2022. The offers effectively required both parties to transfer various assets to their three children. While there was some back and forth between counsel, the parties never came to an agreement. However, given that the Wife never offered to pay an equalization payment to the Husband, I find that these offers cannot factor into my analysis.
[10] In my view, both parties behaved unreasonably. The Husband admitted at trial that he did not disclose various loans, bank accounts, and life insurance policies. He also did not provide a valuation of his business, which made the trial more complicated. On the other hand, the Wife initially claimed a separation date of May 1, 2009 and maintained that position until three months before the trial date. This was well after the conferences and questioning were completed. This added unnecessarily to the complexity of the matter.
[11] Weighing the relevant factors, I find that the Wife shall pay the Husband $45,000 in costs, all inclusive.
Mandhane J.
Released: February 21, 2023
COURT FILE NO.: FS-20-97597
DATE: 20230221
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Li Jung Huang
Applicant
- and -
Tzu-Tsung Yang
Respondent
SUPPLEMENTARY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Mandhane J.
Released: February 21, 2023