CITATION: Burton v. Burton, 2016 ONSC 846

COURT FILE NO.: FC-11-2327

DATE: 2016/02/02

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: SUSAN BURTON, Applicant

AND

JODY BURTON, Respondent

BEFORE: Shelston J.

COUNSEL: Carol A. Crawford, counsel for the Applicant

Caroline E. Kelly, counsel for the Respondent

James L. MacGillivray, counsel for David Chow and Stoneworks Technologies Inc.

HEARD: In Writing (at Ottawa)

SUPPLEMENTARY ENDORSEMENT

[1] On January 8, 2016, I released my endorsement in this matter with respect to the motions argued in the fall of 2015.

[2] On January 26, 2016, I received correspondence from counsel for the applicant requesting that I reconsider my endorsement with respect to the request for disclosure of information regarding the composition of Stonework’s customers as set out at page 2 in Mr. Pittman’s letter of September 15, 2015.

[3] In response to this letter, both counsel for the respondent and counsel for Stonework’s object to any reconsideration of the endorsement as an attempt by the applicant to appeal the temporary order and that the time for such appeal has expired.

[4] Upon a review the pleadings in my endorsement, the issue of the effect of the requested disclosure on the valuation of the respondent’s interest in Stonework’s was raised in both written material and in oral argument but my endorsement inadvertently failed to provide my ruling on that specific request.

[5] For the same reasons as set out in my endorsement, being balancing the issues of relevancy, the potential damage to Stonework’s and the proportionality of the disclosure requested, I deny this request.

Shelston J.

Released: February 2, 2016

CITATION: Burton v. Burton, 2016 ONSC 846

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

RE: SUSAN BURTON, Applicant

AND

JODY BURTON, Respondent

BEFORE: Shelston J.

COUNSEL: Carol A. Crawford, counsel for the Applicant

Caroline E. Kelly, counsel for the Respondent

SUPPLEMENTARY ENDORSEMENT

Shelston J.

Released: February 2, 2016