Degagne v. Paquette, 2026 ONSC 1145

Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: FS 19-144 Date: 2026/02/24

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

TRACY PAQUETTE DEGAGNE Applicant

– and –

OLIVIER JULES JOSEPH PAQUETTE Respondent

S. Sikora, for the Applicant

Self-represented (No one appearing)

HEARD: February 6 and 17, June 5, August 11, 2023; August 9, September 20, November 29, 2024; December 11, 2025

REASONS FOR DECISION

Ellies J.

OVERVIEW

1Ms. Degagne applied for a divorce under the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), and for an order for equalization of net family property ("NFP") under the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3. Although Mr. Paquette responded to the application, his pleadings were struck in January 2022 (with the exception of his NFP statement) for failing to fulfill his financial disclosure obligations under the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99. The matter proceeded as an uncontested trial before me, beginning in 2023. The divorce was granted on November 20, 2024. However, for reasons I will touch upon, the trial relating to equalization had to be continued on a number of occasions. It finally finished recently.

2These reasons explain my decision to order that Mr. Paquette pay Ms. Degagne the sum of $229,896.35 to equalize net family property, less two advances on payment totalling $69,657.21 (one in the amount of $5,000 and the other in the amount of $64,657.21), for a net payment of $160,239.14, together with prejudgment interests and costs.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

3The application that began these proceedings was issued in 2019. In 2021, Ms. Degagne moved for an order for partition and sale of a property she owned jointly with Mr. Paquette under the Partition Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.4. For reasons released on February 08, 2021, I ordered that the roughly 61 acre property be sold: Degagne v. Paquette, 2021 ONSC 1007.

4At about the same time as the partition and sale proceedings were going on, power of sale proceedings were also going on concerning two of the properties owned solely by Mr. Paquette. By way of an endorsement dated May 30, 2022, Koke J. ordered that the law firm representing the lender (CIBC) deposit the net sale proceeds from the sale of both properties into court to the credit of this application. Unfortunately, that did not happen very quickly, which gave rise to several collateral proceedings. Eventually, the sum of $257,516.46 was paid into court to the credit of this application.

5The judge who ordered that Mr. Paquette's pleadings be struck also ordered that Mr. Paquette's rights of appearance at trial would be in the discretion of the trial judge. Mr. Paquette did not attend the trial when it began in February 2023. However, he later sent a lawyer he had retained in another matter, who asked if Mr. Paquette could participate. For reasons delivered orally at that time, his request was refused. The matter, therefore, proceeded without his participation.

6Unfortunately, the trial had to be adjourned on a number of occasions to permit Ms. Degagne to obtain further evidence and to tend to family matters. It seemed to come to an end on September 20, 2024, when I made an order for reasons to follow that Ms. Degagne was to receive the sum of $64,657.21, together with interest, as her share of the sale proceeds of the 61-acre property she owned jointly with Mr. Paquette, and an equalization payment of $331,000, representing the balance of a $336,000 equalization payment owed by Mr. Paquette, less an advance payment I ordered earlier of $5,000.

7However, shortly after it was made, I discovered that the September 2024 order was based on incomplete information. In particular, no information had been provided for the value of two pieces of property as of the date of marriage, as a result of which those values had not been deducted from the property owned by Mr. Paquette at the date of separation. Ms. Sikora advised that the order had not been acted upon and agreed that my earlier order could be set aside under r. 25(19) of the Family Law Rules because it was mistaken. For that reason, the trial was reconvened on two further occasions, the most recent being in December 2025. Since then, as I will explain, I have discovered another mistake, this one relating to the jointly-owned property.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

8The parties were married on July 4, 2008. They separated on April 8, 2017. They have four children. The oldest child is now 16 years old; the youngest is 10. The children reside with Ms. Degagne pursuant to a final order made in the Ontario Court of Justice (the "OCJ") in May 2019. Pursuant to that order, Mr. Paquette was to pay child support in the amount of $1,076 per month. He has not voluntarily paid anything.

9Because the OCJ order resolved all of the other issues resulting from the parties' separation, the only issues remaining to be dealt with in this court were the issues of the equalization of net family property and the divorce. As mentioned earlier, the divorce order was issued on November 20, 2024. These reasons, therefore, deal only with the equalization issue.

10I accept the values Ms. Degagne has attributed to the less valuable assets, such as the household goods and vehicles. The issues at trial centered on the major assets, including the real property owned by each party, the farm equipment owned by Mr. Paquette, and Mr. Paquette's pension. These reasons relate only to those issues.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

Real Property Owned by Mr. Paquette

11Among the main assets to be equalized were four parcels of land owned by Mr. Paquette in the West Nipissing area. One of them was a farm located at 10725 Highway 17 West. This property is known as "Snow's Farm". The other was a property located at 10777 Highway 17 West, and was described by Ms. Degagne as the "Greenhouse Property". These are the two properties that were sold by the bank under the power of sale proceedings referred to above.

Snow's Farm

12Snow's Farm was purchased by Mr. Paquette in 2004, before the parties were married. Because Mr. Paquette provided no financial information, the task of determining the value of the property as of the date of marriage fell to Ms. Degagne. Unfortunately, although Ms. Sikora was able to obtain a "PIN" (property identifier number) for the property through which she could access the history of the property on the Terranet registration system, the information relating to the price at which Mr. Paquette purchased the property had been deleted from the system. Therefore, at my request, Ms. Degagne retained an appraiser, Tom Stone, to estimate the value of Snow's Farm both on the date of marriage and on the date of separation (the valuation date, under the Family Law Act).

13According to Mr. Stone, Snow's Farm was worth $250,000 on the date of marriage (July 4, 2008). I have no reason to question this. However, Mr. Stone also estimates that Snow's Farm was worth the same amount on the valuation date, almost nine years later (April 8, 2017). I am unable to accept this estimation. In my view, it is too low. I say this for two reasons.

14First, according to the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC"), Snow's Farm was assessed at $266,000 for the tax year 2016. I recognize that property assessments are different than property appraisals. However, they are both based on the unencumbered value of the property if sold at arm's length by a willing seller to a willing buyer: Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.91, s. 1(1) and s. 19(1) (re. definition of "current value"); Ann Wilton and Gary Joseph, Family Property Law and Practice in Canada, 2025 Thomson Reuters Canada Limited, Release No. 7, Appendix A § A:5 (re. definition of "fair market value"). Therefore, the assessed value of the property does provide some evidence of its fair market value. MPAC's assessment is higher for 2016 than is Mr. Stone's appraisal for 2017. This seems unlikely in light of the evidence in this case that property values in West Nipissing have been rising, which leads to my second reason for rejecting Mr. Stone's opinion as to the value of Snow's Farm in 2017.

15According to the Terranet registration information, Snow's Farm sold on July 28, 2021, for $321,000 under the power of sale proceedings. ¹ This is $71,000 more than the property was worth in 2017, if one was to accept Mr. Stone's figure. It seems incongruous that the property could remain at the same value for nine years during the parties' marriage, but that it could increase so significantly in the four years thereafter.

16For these reasons, to arrive at what I believe is a more accurate estimate of the value of Snow's Farm as at the date of separation, I have subtracted the amount of the MPAC assessment in 2016 ($266,000) from the amount for which it sold in 2021 ($321,000) to arrive at the sum of $55,000 and then divided that sum by the number of years in between (5), to estimate the average yearly increase in value over that period of time. This yields a result of $11,000. I have added that sum ($11,000) to the 2016 MPAC assessed value of $266,000, to arrive at a value for Snow's Farm as of the valuation date of $277,000. I recognize that this method is unlikely to perfectly reflect reality. However, it is all I have.

17Regrettably, the equalization exercise does not end there as it relates to this property. Once again, because Mr. Paquette refused to provide the required financial disclosure, Ms. Degagne has had to work to determine the value of any debt that was associated with Snow's Farm as of the date of marriage.

18Ms. Degagne deposes that a line of credit was established by Mr. Paquette to purchase the property. She has provided a copy of a bank statement dated May 10, 2017, in Mr. Paquette's name which shows a line of credit balance of $116,100.78 as of that date (see Case Center, p. A751). I agree with Ms. Degagne that the outstanding balance on the line of credit as of the date of separation is more likely to be the sum of $113,772.17 (rather than the $116,100.78 shown on the May 10 statement) because the statement itself says that it covers the period from April 7, 2017, to May 10, 2017, and $113,772.17 is the amount that the statement indicates was owing as of the date of the last statement, which must have been on or about April 6, 2017.

19Ms. Degagne argues that the outstanding debt would likely have been much higher than this as of the 2008 date of marriage. She submits that it was likely paid down substantially over the roughly nine years the parties were together. Respectfully, I am unable to accept that submission. It might be true if the debt associated with the purchase of Snow's Farm was in the form of a mortgage. In the case of a mortgage, it is usually much harder to increase the amount of the principal debt. However, this was not a mortgage; it was a line of credit. As the May 10 statement demonstrates, at the time of separation, the amount of the indebtedness was actually going up.

20When Snow's Farm was sold in 2021 by the bank, the law firm that sold it paid the bank the sum of $131,512.35 to discharge the debt secured against the property. If this line of credit was the one used to purchase Snow's Farm, I see this as more evidence that the original debt was not being paid down in the way a traditional mortgage would have been.

21In the absence of any other evidence as to the amount of the indebtedness associated with the Snow's Farm property as of the date of the marriage, I will use the maximum amount of credit available on the credit line, which the May 10, 2017, statement indicates was $122,250.

The Greenhouse Property

22One of the reasons that the line of credit on Snow's Farm was going up was because it was being used to make bi-weekly mortgage payments in the amount of $301.67. The mortgage is identified as "MTG003143770.1". That identifier is the same as a mortgage listed on a statement from the bank to Mr. Paquette dated April 25, 2017, attached as Ex. "P" to Ms. Degagne's January 11, 2023, affidavit (Case Center, p. A743). That statement, entitled "My Accounts", seems to list all of Mr. Paquette's accounts with the CIBC. The only mortgage listed is the one I have referred to. The statement shows that $106,697.63 was owing on the mortgage as of the date of the statement. Ms. Degagne deposes that this mortgage was associated with the property known as the "Greenhouse Property".

23Ms. Degagne has indicated in her NFP statement that the mortgage on the Greenhouse Property was $106,882.79 at the time of separation. I accept this, as it is based on documents from the bank that were generated at or about that time. However, Ms. Degagne did not show this debt as at the date of separation in any of the NFP statements she filed in the case. Instead, she chose not to show the debt on the basis that it had been retired when the Greenhouse Property and Snow's Farm were sold by the bank in 2021. Nonetheless, she chose to show the value of the Greenhouse Property at the date of separation as an asset on Mr. Paquette's side of the NFP statement. In my view, this is improper. Therefore, I have used the amount of $106,882.79 as the value of the debt Mr. Paquette bore for the property as of that date. Of course, this significantly impacts the equalization calculation.

24Unfortunately, Ms. Sikora was not able to obtain a PIN for this property because Ms. Degagne is unaware of the name of the current owner. Fortunately, however, because the Greenhouse Property was purchased during the marriage, Ms. Degagne was not required to ask Mr. Stone to provide an opinion of the property's value as of that date. Nonetheless, she did have to ask him to provide an opinion of the value of the property as of the date of separation.

25Mr. Stone appraised the property at $175,000 as of that date. I have no reason to question this valuation. Unlike the case of Snow's Farm, in which MPAC assessed the value of the property in 2016 at a higher value than did Mr. Stone for 2017, the MPAC $156,000 assessment of the Greenhouse Property as of 2016 is not markedly different than Mr. Stone's appraisal for 2017. MPAC assessed the property value at $156,000 as of that date. For this reason, I have used Mr. Stone's value of $175,000 as the value of the property on the date of separation.

The Matrimonial Home

26Like the other properties owned solely by Mr. Paquette, the former matrimonial home is located in West Nipissing. Ms. Degagne believes Mr. Paquette still resides there. She testified that she was unable to have the matrimonial home properly appraised for that reason. Nonetheless, she was able to obtain an "opinion of value" from Mr. Stone that the home was worth between $300,000 and $350,000 (including the bush lot referred to below) as of the date of separation. Ms. Degagne has taken the mid-point of $325,000 as the value of the home on the valuation date, with which I agree.

27Because it was a matrimonial home, there was no need for Ms. Degagne to seek a valuation of the home on the date of marriage: Family Law Act, s. 4(1) (definition of "net family property").

28There is no debt associated with the matrimonial home, which Ms. Degagne deposes was gifted to Mr. Paquette by his father.

The Bush Lot

29There is an unimproved lot located adjacent to the matrimonial home. During the trial, I expressed the view that this lot should be valued separately from the matrimonial home. However, having considered it since, I agree with Ms. Sikora that this lot should be considered as an integral part of the matrimonial home. There is no road access to the lot. Although the lot was used by Mr. Paquette's brother, who lived nearby, it was treated by the parties as part of the matrimonial home. The evidence is that it really has little value as a separate parcel.

30For these reasons, I would not attempt to treat the bush lot separately from the matrimonial home and, therefore, would not deduct its value on the date of marriage from its value on the date of separation.

Real Property Owned Jointly

31There was a fifth property in West Nipissing. This was the property that was owned jointly by the parties that I ordered be sold under the Partition Act. On May 11, 2021, I ordered that the sum of $10,000 be withheld from the sale proceeds of $142,928.84 to pay for appraisals of the other properties at issue in this application. On August 11, 2023, I ordered that the sum of $5,000 be paid from these funds to Ms. Degagne as an advance on equalization.

32In addition, the sum of $34,832 was paid to the Family Responsibility Office ("FRO") from Mr. Paquette's share of the net sale proceeds as money owing by Mr. Paquette to Ms. Degagne for child support under the May 2019 order. Later, the further sum of $29,452 was also paid to FRO from Mr. Paquette's share for support owing by Mr. Paquette to Ms. Degagne. These monies have also been paid to Ms. Degagne. The remaining funds have been held in trust by the lawyers who acted on the sale.

33On September 20, 2024, I ordered that Ms. Degagne was entitled to the sum of $64,657.21 from the sale proceeds of the 61-acre property, together with interest thereon. This sum represented one-half of the net sale proceeds. However, my order failed to take into account the debt that was incurred by Mr. Paquette to purchase the property. Ms. Degagne deposes that Mr. Paquette established a line of credit to pay for the purchase. She deposes that the line of credit was in the amount of $63,854.43 as of the date of separation. However, that figure is taken from a statement dated May 10, 2017. Like the statement of the same date relating to the line of credit associated with Snow's Farm, however, I have concluded that the debt on the date of separation was more likely to be the amount shown as owing at the beginning of the period covered by the statement, being April 7, 2017. That amount is $61,463.90.

34Because the amount of the debt related to the jointly-owned property was not considered by me when I made my order of September 2024, I have decided to treat it as an advance on equalization. I have, therefore, included the debt of $61,463.90 owed by Mr. Paquette on the valuation date in my equalization calculation and have attributed one-half of the sale proceeds ($71,764.42) to each party. ² This sum does not take into account the costs of disposition. However, none of the values used for equalization purposes take these costs into account, a fact to which I will return shortly.

Real Property Owned by Ms. Degagne

35The final piece of real property to be equalized belonged to Ms. Degagne, and not to Mr. Paquette, and is not located in West Nipissing.

36At the time the parties were married, Ms. Degagne owned a residential property in North Bay. I have not been given any information as to the date of the purchase or the purchase price of the property. Ms. Degagne testified that she lived in the home prior to the marriage. She continued to own the property throughout the marriage and rented it out. She sold it in October 2018, after the parties separated, for $121,067.78. There was a mortgage on the property at the time of the sale in the amount of approximately $38,000. After discharging that mortgage and paying the costs of disposition, Ms. Degagne netted approximately $75,500.

37Ms. Degagne deposes that the rental property was worth the same amount on the date of the marriage as it was when she sold it in 2018. Although it would seem unlikely at first, I accept this evidence. Ms. Degagne provided an MPAC assessment showing the assessed value of the property at $121,000 for 2008. She deposed that the reason the home sold for that amount 10 years later is that the home was destroyed by its most recent tenants, who were drug addicts. She describes in sad detail the damage they did to the home over the course of their tenancy there. Based on that evidence, it is not difficult to accept that the home never appreciated in value.

38Ms. Degagne was not able to produce exact information about the amount owing on the mortgage for the North Bay property as of the date of marriage. However, she was able to obtain a mortgage statement for the year 2009. The statement shows that Ms. Degagne made bi-weekly mortgage payments in the amount of $263. ³ Using "reverse math", as she phrased it, Ms. Degagne estimates that the amount of the mortgage at the date of marriage was approximately $74,807.03. I am prepared to accept this.

39In her NFP statement of September 16, 2024, Ms. Degagne indicates that the value of the debt associated with the North Bay property as of the date of separation in 2017 was $45,493.23. However, this amount is based on the net proceeds of the sale of the property in 2018. It includes the amount of the mortgage on that date, as well as the costs of disposition, including legal fees. I do not believe it would be appropriate to deduct these disposition costs from the value of this asset: see Siddiqui v. Anwar, 2018 ONSC 219, at paras. 157-158. In this case, especially, because none of the values that I have been asked to attribute to Mr. Paquette have been reduced by the notional costs of disposition, I do not believe it would be fair to do that with respect to the value to be attributed to Ms. Degagne's property. Instead, I propose to estimate the amount of the outstanding mortgage on her property as of the date of separation by using a slight variation of the reverse math that was employed to estimate the amount of the mortgage in 2008.

40Assuming there were exactly 52 weeks in 2017, Ms. Degagne would have made total bi-weekly mortgage payments of $9,468 over the roughly 18-month period between the date of separation and the date of sale, when the amount owing on the mortgage was $38,020.23. However, not all of those payments would have been applied to principal; some would have been applied to interest. The 2009 mortgage statement shows that, of the $6,021.68 paid in 2009, $3,247.01, or approximately 53 percent, was applied towards the principal owing at that time. By 2018, roughly half of the principal had been paid down. For that reason, I would estimate that only about 25 percent of the payments being made in 2017 were being applied towards the interest and that about 75 percent were being applied towards the principal. If this is correct, then of the $9,468 paid after the date of separation, about $7,101 was paid on the principal. I would add this amount to the amount of the principal owing on the date of the sale ($38,020.23) to estimate the amount of the outstanding mortgage on the date of separation at approximately $45,121. It will be seen that this amount is not far off the amount Ms. Degagne included in her September 2024 NFP, based on a different methodology.

Farm Equipment

41In addition to the real property referred to above, there are two other large assets to be equalized. One is the farm equipment. Ms. Degagne testified that she was unable to have anyone attend at the respondent's property to have the equipment valued, again because Mr Paquette was occupying the property. Relying on her own Internet research, Ms. Degagne values the farm equipment at approximately $134,500, exclusive of some items owned by Mr. Paquette at the date of marriage, namely a four-wheel drive tractor, a four-wheeler, a skid-steer, and a small riding tractor.

42I accept this value.

Mr. Paquette's Pension

43The other large asset is Mr. Paquette's pension. Ms. Degagne testified that Mr. Paquette worked for a Sudbury mining company for about 11 years before the parties were married and for a further 3 to 4 years after they were married, before he took up farming. In her affidavit of January 11, 2023, she deposed that Mr. Paquette's pension funds were transferred into a LIRA after he left his job.

44Ms. Degagne produced a statement from the bank dated June 30, 2017, which shows that the LIRA had a value on that date of $121,656.39. However, during her testimony, she candidly admitted that she had seen a statement at the time of separation a few months earlier which showed a value of about $115,000.

45Ms. Degagne has not been able to obtain any information concerning the value of Mr. Paquette's pension plan as of the date of marriage. Of course, it was Mr. Paquette's obligation to provide that information. In its absence, I would simply divide the value of the pension at the date of separation ($115,000) by the number of years during which Mr. Paquette worked for the mining company (15) to come up with an average yearly contribution of $7,667. I would then multiply that number by the number of years that Mr. Paquette worked for the company prior to the date of marriage (11.5, based on the evidence that he worked three-to-four years after the marriage), to arrive at a value for the pension as of that date of roughly $88,000.

CONCLUSION

46Using the values that I have accepted from Ms. Degagne's NFP statement and those that I have estimated above, I have created my own NFP statement, attached to these reasons as Appendix "A". As the statement shows, Mr. Paquette's net family property is $583,473.56. Ms. Degagne's is $123,680.86. The difference is $459,792.70. Therefore, to equalize the net family property of the parties, Mr. Paquette must pay Ms. Degagne the sum of $229,896.35.

47As I mentioned earlier, Ms. Degagne was awarded an advance payment on equalization in the amount of $5,000. As I also mentioned, because I did not take into account the debt Mr. Paquette had borne in connection with the jointly-owned property, I am also treating the payment I ordered to Ms. Degagne of $64,657.21 from the proceeds of that sale as an advance on equalization. This leaves the sum of $160,239.14 owing. This sum shall be paid to Ms. Degagne out of the proceeds from the sale of Snow's Farm and the Greenhouse Property currently being held by the court to the credit of this application.

48My order of September 20, 2024, and a related order of November 27, 2024, shall both be vacated.

COSTS

49Under r. 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, Ms. Degagne is entitled to her costs. On her behalf, Ms. Sikora first sought costs in the amount of $21,234.77 in October 2024. Her request was supported by a bill of costs dated October 28, 2024. During a conference held on November 26, 2024, I pointed out that some of the costs listed in the bill of costs related to OCJ proceedings and, therefore, ought not to have been included in the bill of costs relating to the present ones.

50Ms. Sikora undertook to review the bill of costs and provided a revised bill dated December 2, 2024. Unfortunately, however, the December 2024 bill of cost continues to reflect services that do not appear to relate to this trial. For example, there is an entry for February 1, 2021, entitled "to attendance at motion". However, that attendance was in connection with the motion for partition and sale and Ms. Degagne was already awarded her costs for that motion by way of an order dated August 18, 2021, in which I awarded her costs in the amount of $2,039.83, all-inclusive. I will return to this motion and the costs associated with it, below.

51Ms. Degagne's December 2024 bill of costs also contains an entry for August 3, 2021, entitled "to preparation for settlement conference". However, on that same date, I made a costs order in Ms. Degagne's favour in relation to that settlement. Therefore, this entry also ought not to be included in the bill of costs, as it has already been considered.

52These improper entries do not add up to much; they total only $309.14. However, they do shake my faith somewhat in the other entries.

53Nonetheless, I accept and know first-hand how much work Ms. Degagne and her lawyer were required to do because of Mr. Paquette's failure to fulfill his obligations under the Family Law Rules and I do not wish to see Ms. Degagne undercompensated in those circumstances. For that reason, I have deducted only these improper entries in the amount of $309.14 from the sum of $18,100.95 sought for the fess portion of Ms. Degagne's costs, reducing the amount to $17,791.81. Unfortunately, however, the disbursements claimed also present a problem.

54No breakdown has been provided with respect to the disbursements sought of $290.89. I am not concerned about this lack of information as it relates to this small sum. However, as I mentioned earlier, in May 2021 I ordered that the sum of $10,000 be withheld from the sale proceeds of the jointly-owned property to pay for the costs of appraisals. I require an accounting with respect to this money. For present purposes, I will use only the $290.89 sought for disbursements in calculating my costs award. It may be that the award has to be recalculated, depending on what happened to the $10,000.

55The amount of the HST for fees and disbursements on the December 2024 bill of costs was $2,390.94. The amount of the HST payable on the original fee sought of $18,100.95 would have been $2,353.12. Therefore, I assume that the difference of $37.82 between the amount of HST that would have been payable on the fees portion ($2,353.12) and the actual amount of HST claimed ($2,390.94) represents the amount of HST payable only on the disbursements claimed. Therefore, adding that sum ($37.92) to the HST of $2,321.94 on the reduced fees as I have allowed them of $17,791.81, I believe the new total for HST is $2,350.76. Adding the amount allowed for fees ($17,791.81), for disbursements ($290.89), and HST ($2,350.76) brings the total costs allowed to $20,433.46.

56I would also add the costs for appearances after the December 2, 2024, bill of costs was prepared. These are contained in a bill of costs dated January 20, 2026, and total $2,956.90, which I find to be reasonable and supported by the bills of costs.

57Having reviewed the case, I am concerned that one costs award might have been overlooked. In particular, on January 15, 2021, I adjourned the motion for partition and sale to allow Mr. Paquette to file responding materials. I assessed costs for the appearance that day in the amount of $750 and ordered that they be payable "in the cause", meaning to the successful party on the motion. As mentioned above, on August 3, 2021, I made a costs order in Ms. Degagne's favour in the amount of $2,039 with respect to that motion. It is not clear to me that these costs include the $750 award made on January 15, 2021. If not, Ms. Degagne is entitled to a separate award for those costs.

58Any other existing costs order against Mr. Paquette that has not been paid may also be paid out of the funds held by the court, upon filing the appropriate materials with the Registrar.

59Ms. Sikora may submit the accounting referred to above and a draft order for my review within 30 days. The order should include a term that a copy of these reasons and of the final order shall be served upon Mr. Paquette via email, or whatever means of service has proven successful most recently. The funds held by the court to the credit of this application shall remain with the court until I have approved a final order.

M.G. Ellies J.

Footnotes

1. 1However, according to Ms. Degagne's most recent NFP, the property sold for $356,000. I am not sure where this higher number came from. It does not appear in the Terranet documentation at Case Center, p. A1945. The figure there is $321,000. In any event, it is irrelevant because the property must be valued as of the date of separation, and not the date upon which it was sold.
2. 2Because the property is jointly owned, it is not necessary to determine the value of the property as of the date of separation.
3. 3Ms. Degagne incorrectly deposed at para. 15 of her September 16, 2024, affidavit that she was paying this amount per month, rather than bi-weekly.