Christopher Patrick Burrison

This endorsement from a settlement conference in a high-conflict family law case primarily addresses parenting issues.

The court vacated the respondent father's scheduled long motion concerning parenting arrangements, citing his non-compliance with procedural rules (failure to serve notice of motion and file a timetable agreement) and the principle of proportionality.

The court emphasized that bringing multiple motions on the same issue in quick succession, especially after a prior interim order, is contrary to the Family Law Rules and the access to justice principles articulated in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The judge also noted the high bar for varying interim parenting orders and the application of issue estoppel.

The case was reluctantly placed on the fall 2022 trial blitz, and any future motions require leave of the court.

Directions were also given for questioning and financial disclosure related to a jointly owned cottage.

The applicant father sought an urgent Case Conference to address access to the parties' two children and to appoint an expert for a parenting assessment under s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, alleging the respondent mother was obstructing access.

The court found the matter met the urgency requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic and granted the motion, providing specific directions for the conference, including timelines for brief submissions and details regarding the proposed assessor.

The court also offered guidance on parenting during the pandemic, emphasizing the presumption of continuing existing arrangements and the need for realistic solutions.

The applicant sought urgent financial relief after the respondent unilaterally removed a substantial sum from a joint line of credit on two occasions, draining it.

The court found the matter met the high test of urgency required during the COVID-19 pandemic, given the significant depletion of assets and dire financial implications for the applicant and children.

The court ordered the immediate return of funds to the line of credit, its freezing, and a non-dissipation order against the respondent.

A costs decision following a motion to change child support.

The applicant sought costs of $208,728.79 based on success in the motion and an unaccepted settlement offer.

The respondent argued for divided success and a reduced costs award.

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith through non-compliance with support orders, concealment of assets, incomplete disclosure, and failure to make a settlement offer.

The court awarded costs on a full recovery basis but applied a reasonableness test to the quantum, ordering the respondent to pay $63,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The respondent sought to vary child support orders made by the Hong Kong court, alleging a material change in circumstances following his termination from employment.

The applicant opposed the variation and sought to impute income to the respondent based on his failure to disclose and his underutilization of substantial capital assets.

The court found a material change in circumstances warranting variation but declined retroactive relief.

The court imputed employment income of $67,500 annually and notional investment income at 2% on the respondent's capital.

For 2014-2015, the court averaged the respondent's income at $438,205 annually (including undeclared foreign exchange gains), resulting in table support of $5,297 monthly plus 70% of private school fees.

For 2016 onward, support was reduced to $1,493 monthly based on imputed income of $106,804 annually.

The court ordered security for future support payments and dismissed the respondent's request for an order directing the children to attend public school.

An application for spousal support under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (ISOA) where the applicant, a medical graduate residing in British Columbia, sought $2,500 per month in support from the respondent, a lawyer residing in Ontario.

The parties had been in a common-law relationship for approximately six years and eight months, from August 2007 to February 2014.

The respondent contested the application, arguing the parties did not meet the qualifying period for common-law status and that the applicant was capable of self-support.

The court found the parties constituted a common-law couple within the meaning of the Family Law Act, established the applicant's entitlement to spousal support on a non-compensatory basis, and declined to impute income to the applicant.

The court also declined to set off RBC loan payments against support payments, finding it lacked jurisdiction over property matters.