Glen Andrew Cook

The parties separated in 2020 after an 11-year marriage, resulting in a high-conflict parenting dispute over their three children.

The applicant father sought sole decision-making and primary residence, while the respondent mother sought the same.

The court found the applicant had engaged in a pattern of alienating behaviour and exaggerated claims about the respondent's mental health.

The court ordered a shared parenting schedule, increasing the respondent's parenting time to approximately 43 percent, while leaving final decision-making with the applicant subject to a duty to consult.

The court also imputed income to both parties ($85,000 to the applicant, $52,000 to the respondent) due to intentional underemployment, ordered the respondent to pay retroactive child support, and ordered the applicant to pay prospective child support.

Spousal support entitlement was found but quantum was set at zero.

This decision concerns a dispute over the legal and beneficial ownership of lands surrendered by several First Nations to Canada in 1908, known as the Unsold Surrendered Lands (USL), including the Point Park and associated roads in Fort Frances, Ontario.

The Town of Fort Frances sought summary judgment declaring it the owner of these lands or, alternatively, a public trust or entitlement to damages.

The First Nations, Canada, and Ontario opposed, seeking dismissal of the Town’s claims.

The court found that the Agency One Reserve was a validly created reserve, that the 1908 Order-in-Council (OIC) did not convey the USL to the Town by fee simple or public trust, and that the Town’s claims to the lands, roads, and damages were without merit.

The Town’s motion was dismissed, and the counterclaim struck.

The children's aid society brought a status review application seeking to place the child in the permanent custody of her maternal aunt, with whom she had been living since 2018.

The mother opposed the application, seeking the child's return to her care.

The court found that the child continued to be in need of protection due to the mother's history of housing transiency, financial instability, and high-conflict relationship with the maternal aunt, which caused the child emotional harm.

The court determined it was in the child's best interests to remain in the stable care of the maternal aunt pursuant to a section 102 custody order.

The court also ordered a specified access schedule for the mother, with weekly visits left to the child's discretion.

In a family motion concerning temporary parenting arrangements, the court addressed sexual abuse allegations advanced by the mother as a basis to deny the father access.

After reviewing the chronology, the circumstances of the alleged disclosures, inconsistencies in the evidence, the lack of opportunity, and the contents of police and child protection investigations, the court was not persuaded there was any truth to the allegations and ordered reasonable access.

The court also requested the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, made a restricted access and publication order under s. 70 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, directed production of the unredacted child protection file, and declined to permit filing of police interview videos at that stage.

Costs were awarded to the father on the main issues.

The applicant mother sought temporary sole custody of two young children with the respondent father restricted to supervised access.

The respondent father sought temporary sole custody with the mother's access limited to daytime visits at the paternal grandfather's home.

The court found that the children had resided primarily with the mother since the parties' separation in April 2017 under an informal arrangement.

The father unilaterally retained the children on March 22, 2020, without the mother's consent.

The court held that this unilateral action did not constitute a valid status quo and that the evidence of neglect and safety concerns raised by the father was not sufficiently compelling to justify a drastic change to the established arrangement.

The court ordered that the children remain primarily resident with the mother with frequent and regular access to the father, including three weekends per month and weekly mid-week overnight visits.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and primary residence of the parties' three children.

The respondent father failed to attend the trial despite being notified.

The court considered the mother's evidence, which detailed a history of domestic conflict, her relocation to a home near her Indigenous community, and the father's harassing behaviour during access exchanges.

The court declined to follow the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendation for joint custody, finding the parties could not communicate effectively.

The mother was granted sole custody and primary residence, with specified access for the father, and the father was ordered to pay child support.

A family law trial concerning custody, access, and child support for three young children.

The applicant sought sole custody and primary residence with specified access for the respondent.

The respondent sought sole custody with supervised access for the applicant and child support from the applicant.

The trial proceeded in the absence of the respondent despite proper notice.

The court granted sole custody and primary residence to the applicant based on the applicant's evidence, affidavits from collateral witnesses, and a report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court found that joint custody was inappropriate given the parties' inability to communicate effectively and evidence of the respondent's harassing behavior during access exchanges.

Child support was ordered based on the respondent's declared income.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial on custody of two children.

The mother was successful in obtaining sole custody of the children, having made a settlement offer on November 3, 2017 proposing no costs if the father agreed to sole custody.

The father rejected this offer and proceeded to trial.

The court awarded costs to the successful mother, considering the factors under the Family Law Rules, the reasonableness of the parties' conduct, and the father's limited financial means.

The court fixed costs at $5,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, payable at $100 per month commencing January 1, 2018.

This case involved a motion and cross-motion for interim relief in a family law dispute.

The Mother sought sole interim custody of the child and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, while the Father sought access and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court granted the Mother sole interim custody and exclusive possession, emphasizing the child's best interests and the Mother's financial position.

The Father was granted unsupervised access, as the court found no evidence of danger to the child to warrant denial or supervision.

The Father's request for the sale of the matrimonial home was denied, as his beneficial interest had not yet been established on an interim basis.

The applicant sought a declaration of resulting trust over a portion of the proceeds from the sale of a home registered solely in the name of the second respondent, the first respondent's sister.

The applicant claimed to have contributed over half of the down payment, asserting the home was intended as a matrimonial residence.

The respondents denied any contribution from the applicant.

The court found no evidence to substantiate the applicant's claimed financial contributions, noting inconsistencies with his reported income and lack of documentation for significant cash transfers.

The claim for a resulting trust was dismissed in its entirety.

The court heard two motions brought by respondent parents in a child protection proceeding.

The respondent mother sought a declaration that she and three youngest children are Native and/or eligible for status as Indians under the Child and Family Services Act, and requested that the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte be served and permitted to participate in proceedings.

The respondent father D.M.'s motion was dismissed as he did not appear.

The court adjourned the mother's motion to May 6, 2016, and made orders regarding service on the Band, participation at hearings, and case management to address delays caused by the parties' conduct and the voluminous materials filed.

Application for custody and child support regarding Connor Heuer, born May 19, 2007.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, travel document authority, and restrictions on communication with the respondent father.

The respondent father sought sole custody or, in the alternative, joint custody with shared residence.

The court found that joint custody and parallel parenting arrangements were not viable due to high parental conflict, poor communication, and the applicant's ongoing struggles with prescription drug abuse and mental health issues.

The court awarded sole custody to the respondent father, with the applicant receiving access every other weekend and specified holiday periods.

The respondent was ordered to consult with the applicant on major decisions affecting the child's health, education, religion, and upbringing.

The moving party, the nephew of the respondent mother, brought a motion to be appointed as her litigation guardian and to set aside a default judgment granting a divorce and corollary relief to the applicant father.

The court found the mother was mentally incapable of representing herself due to schizophrenia and appointed the nephew as litigation guardian.

The court declined to set aside the divorce itself but set aside the corollary relief (custody, access, property) because the mother had a plausible explanation for her default, moved promptly once her nephew became involved, and had an arguable case on the merits.

Following a six-day family law trial regarding custody, access, residency, and equalization, both parties sought costs.

The applicant sought partial and substantial indemnity costs based on an unsigned offer to settle, while the respondent sought costs claiming he was the more successful party.

The court found that the applicant's unsigned offer did not comply with Rule 18(4) of the Family Law Rules.

Concluding that success at trial was almost equally divided, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The respondent husband brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant wife's claims for divorce, spousal support, and property equalization, arguing that their religious marriage ceremony was legally invalid because no marriage licence was obtained.

The wife argued she entered the marriage in good faith, intending to comply with the Marriage Act, and relied on the husband's representation that a licence could be obtained later.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that the conflicting factual assertions regarding the validity of the marriage and the parties' intentions created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The mother sought to set aside or change a custody order (the Nevins order) that granted custody of four children to the father after the mother unlawfully retained the children in India beyond the permitted four-week travel period.

The mother claimed she had the father's consent to remain in India until the end of the school year and that she was unaware of Canadian court orders requiring the children's return.

The court rejected the mother's evidence as not credible, finding she had deliberately removed the children from the jurisdiction, ignored court orders, and misrepresented facts to authorities.

The court dismissed the mother's motion to set aside the Nevins order and her motion to change custody based on material change in circumstances.

The court confirmed the father's custody and granted the mother generous access with strict conditions, including passport restrictions and a non-removal clause, due to flight risk concerns.

The applicant mother sought retroactive child support, section 7 expenses, imputation of income, property division, and a restraining order following the parties' separation.

The court found the respondent father was intentionally under-employed and had hidden cash income, imputing his income at $40,000.

The court ordered retroactive child support, directed the sale or buyout of a jointly owned property, and issued a restraining order due to the respondent's history of domestic violence and ongoing hostility.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking temporary sole custody of the child with alternate weekend access to the applicant father, or alternatively, primary residence.

The motion was based on recommendations from an Office of the Children's Lawyer report dated March 4, 2013.

The applicant father opposed the motion and sought to maintain the status quo pending trial.

The court dismissed the mother's motion for a change of custody but granted expanded access to the mother, including alternate weekends and mid-week visits, while maintaining the father's primary custody pending trial.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking the sale of a matrimonial home pending trial, the court determined the appropriate costs award under the Family Law Rules.

The successful party sought full indemnity costs, arguing the motion was vexatious and strategically brought on the eve of trial.

The court assessed the relevant factors under Rule 24(11), including complexity, counsel rates, time spent, proportionality, and the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

Finding the motion was brought in circumstances that created unfair financial pressure and effectively attempted to relitigate prior issues, the court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The respondent spouse opposed a motion by the applicant spouse seeking an interim order for the sale of a residential property pending trial.

The central dispute was whether the property constituted a matrimonial home and whether the court should order its sale before trial.

The court held there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the status of the property and the respondent’s potential entitlement to spousal support and possessory rights under the Family Law Act.

Given the respondent’s vulnerability as a recent immigrant with limited resources and the imminence of trial, the court declined to exercise discretion to order an interim sale.

The motion was dismissed.