Who is Denis E. Burns?

Denis E. Burns is an Ontario lawyer with 3 court cases on record from 2014 to 2017.

What courts has Denis E. Burns appeared in?

Denis E. Burns has appeared in Superior Court of Justice.

How many cases has Denis E. Burns handled?

Denis E. Burns has 3 cases on record from 2014 to 2017.

What judges has Denis E. Burns appeared before?

Denis E. Burns has most frequently appeared before Justice Victor Mitrow, Justice Aston.

Denis E. Burns

3 total

Akeela Elizabeth Rabley v. Wayne Gould Rabley, 2017 ONSC 5356

The applicant sought permission to add six witnesses to the trial list shortly before the scheduled family law trial, despite an order from the trial management conference restricting witnesses to those listed.

The proposed witnesses were intended to testify about the applicant's physical and emotional condition following separation.

The court refused permission, noting the lack of a reasonable explanation for the delay, the potential prejudice to the respondent, and the lack of detailed 'will say' statements, while leaving the ultimate evidentiary rulings to the trial judge.

SCJSep 8, 2017

Respondent Counsel

Smith v. Nicholson, 2014 ONSC 7474

The applicant brought a motion for interim relief, which resulted in a final consent order for child support and the dismissal of her claims for interim spousal support and an order directing the respondent to return to work.

The respondent sought costs, arguing he was entitled to the automatic cost consequences of Rule 18(14) based on his offers to settle.

The court found the respondent did not meet the burden under Rule 18(14) because his offers were either less favourable than the order or failed to comply with the timing requirements.

The court awarded the respondent costs for his partial success but reduced the amount due to his unreasonable failure to disclose a severance payment, fixing costs at $4,746 payable at the conclusion of the case.

SCJDec 31, 2014

Respondent Counsel

Smith v. Nicholson, 2014 ONSC 5476

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support and an order directing the respondent husband to return to full-time employment and not retire during the course of the lawsuit.

The parties had previously signed a separation agreement resolving all issues, which was filed with the court.

The court treated the motion as an interim variation of a final spousal support order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate urgency, hardship, or that the continuation of the existing support order was incongruous and absurd.

The court also found no merit in ordering the respondent not to retire, noting that imputation of income could be addressed at trial.

Respondent Counsel