Brian Joseph Burke

The applicant brought a motion seeking disclosure orders and interim payment for legal costs and an income valuation report.

The court found the applicant's claim of urgency unfounded, noting that delays were partly attributable to the respondent's complex financial holdings and the need to obtain records from third parties.

While acknowledging some outstanding disclosure, the court observed the respondent's cooperation.

The court ordered specific disclosure, including a corporate structure chart, and an interim payment of $35,000 to the applicant for accounting/valuation costs, applying the criteria from Stuart v. Stuart.

All other relief sought by the applicant was dismissed.

Costs were ordered to be borne by each party due to mixed success and the precipitous nature of the motion.

The applicant sought an urgent order to relocate with the parties' one-year-old daughter, Freya, from Toronto to Victoria, B.C., citing a new job opportunity and psychological isolation in Toronto.

The respondent opposed the motion, emphasizing the importance of the child's attachment to both parents.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the proposed move was not in the child's best interests, as it would drastically reduce contact with the father during a critical developmental stage and disrupt the child's daily routine.

The applicant sought costs of a motion on a substantial indemnity or full recovery basis in the amount of $15,642.36.

The court found the applicant was entirely successful on the motion for unsupervised access but was not entitled to full recovery of costs due to the failure to serve an offer to settle.

The court awarded costs in the reduced amount of $7,500.00, inclusive of taxes and disbursements, payable within 90 days, finding that the respondent's position on the motion was unreasonable and that some costs were incurred due to unnecessary litigation tactics.

The father brought a motion for unsupervised access to his eight-year-old daughter, who had been in the de facto custody of the mother since the parties' separation over one year prior.

The mother opposed the motion, alleging a history of violence and substance abuse by the father.

The court found insufficient evidence of a pattern of domestic violence or substance abuse, noting that the only incident post-separation was an isolated occurrence more than one year prior.

The supervised access reports demonstrated a warm, loving relationship between father and child with no observed anxiety.

The court granted the motion and ordered unsupervised access to continue on the existing schedule with conditions regarding alcohol consumption and physical discipline.

The court determined costs following competing family law motions concerning the appointment of a professional to prepare a Voice of the Child Report and disclosure of a professional’s file.

Both parties achieved partial success on the motions.

The court found that neither party demonstrated unreasonable conduct under the Family Law Rules despite allegations from both sides.

However, the applicant had made an offer to settle regarding disclosure of the professional’s file and ultimately achieved the result contemplated by that offer.

In recognition of that offer, the court ordered the respondent to pay modest costs for the disclosure motion while each party bore their own costs for the remaining issues.

In an international custody dispute involving children brought from Ukraine to Ontario, the court addressed several interlocutory motions before a scheduled jurisdiction trial under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The applicant sought production of a parenting professional’s file and appointment of a professional to prepare a Voice of the Child Report, while the respondent requested appointment of a different professional and validation of service of responding documents.

The court ordered full disclosure of the professional’s file, finding no confidentiality or privilege preventing production.

It also appointed an independent professional to prepare the Voice of the Child Report and confirmed that service of the respondent’s Answer and financial materials on the applicant’s counsel was effective.

Directions were given for production timelines and further procedural steps before the upcoming trial.