Glen Andrew Cook

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 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 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.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order making a child a Crown ward.

The child had been apprehended in December 2009, placed with the mother in February 2011 under supervision, and re-apprehended in April 2011 after the mother violated multiple court-ordered conditions.

The mother sought to resume care; the father sought a custody order for the paternal grandmother in England.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the motion, making the child a Crown ward with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The court found the mother's plan to resume care had no air of reality given her pattern of emotional instability, poor judgment, inability to comply with court orders, and failure to engage in meaningful counselling or supportive services.