Brian Burke

The applicant sought full indemnity costs of $35,747.55 following cross-motions regarding parenting arrangements, mobility, and daycare.

The applicant argued entitlement to enhanced costs because he served three offers to settle that were as favourable or less favourable than the final order, pursuant to Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The respondent argued no costs should be ordered as she litigated in good faith.

The court found the applicant was entitled to full indemnity costs for the issues of parenting time and mobility from the date of his March 1, 2022 offers.

Considering proportionality and the reasonable expectations of the parties, the court fixed costs payable by the respondent to the applicant at $25,000.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for the return of the parties' two young children and the suspension of the applicant father's parenting time.

The father had unilaterally withheld the children, claiming the mother was abusing them, and locked out the professional supervisor.

The court found the father's abuse allegations to be unsubstantiated and his conduct raised serious concerns about his stability and the children's safety.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children, suspended the father's in-person parenting time, and included a police enforcement clause.

Following a 10-day trial on parenting issues where the respondent father was entirely successful, he sought partial indemnity costs of $350,000 plus half the costs of a section 30 assessment.

The court found that the applicant mother's conduct throughout the litigation was deplorable and unreasonable, driven by false allegations of abuse and alienating behaviours, though it fell just short of bad faith.

The court awarded the respondent his requested costs of $389,346.18, noting the amount was fair, reasonable, and proportionate given the complexity of the issues and the applicant's conduct.

The father brought a motion to enforce and vary a final parenting order after the mother repeatedly withheld the child in breach of the order.

The court found that the mother's actions placed the child at risk by disrupting the structured predictability he needed.

The court ordered the appointment of a therapeutic parenting counsellor, reduced the mother's parenting time, and included police enforcement provisions to ensure compliance with the parenting schedule.

The applicant mother sought joint custody, parallel decision-making, and equal parenting time of the parties' 10-year-old child.

The respondent father sought sole custody and decision-making responsibility, with the child spending 5 out of 14 days with the mother, along with therapeutic interventions.

The court found that the mother engaged in egregious post-separation conduct, including making unfounded allegations of physical and sexual abuse against the father, which caused emotional harm to the child and raised significant concerns of parental alienation.

Relying on expert assessments, the court concluded that the mother was unable to co-parent and that her hostility towards the father remained unresolved.

The court awarded sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence to the father, limited the mother's parenting time to 5 out of 14 days, and ordered therapeutic supervision for the mother.

The applicant brought a wide‑ranging family law motion seeking relief including exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, child and spousal support, disclosure, valuation of assets, and interim disbursements.

The respondent brought a competing motion seeking sale of the matrimonial home, changes to access, termination of a restraining order, and termination of interim financial obligations.

The court declined to order the sale of the matrimonial home and granted the applicant temporary exclusive possession, finding the sale would prejudice the applicant’s financial position and stability.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on lifestyle evidence and lack of disclosure, ordered interim child support and spousal support, and granted interim disbursements to level the litigation playing field.

The court also maintained the existing access schedule, refused to terminate the restraining order, and ordered extensive financial disclosure and asset valuation.