Chelsea Lynne Hooper

The applicant sought to vary an interim order requiring her to hold $150,000 in trust as security for the respondents' claims.

The applicant also sought release of funds from the sale of two properties: an investment property (Donway) and a pre-construction condominium (Elgin).

The respondents brought cross-motions for disclosure and compliance with prior court orders.

The court found that the applicant had not fully complied with prior orders from Justice Pinto and Justice Kraft regarding the trust funds.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion and granted the respondents' requests for disclosure and compliance orders.

The applicant was ordered to pay costs to both respondents.

The respondent sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home located in Toronto and a time-sharing arrangement for a cottage property in McKellar, Ontario.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought alternative relief.

The court granted the respondent exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, finding that the applicant's conduct—including unauthorized access to privileged documents, placement of tracking devices, and attempts to access email accounts—constituted psychological abuse rendering continued cohabitation impractical.

The court declined to determine whether the cottage property constituted a matrimonial home, as this required findings of credibility better suited to trial.

Instead, the court granted the respondent limited use of the cottage for two one-week periods annually, while granting the applicant exclusive use of both the main cottage and secondary rental cottage.

The court considered a motion for summary judgment by Payam Bozorgi, who was added as a party to Shabnam Shokoufimoghiman’s family law application against her former spouse, Amir Ebrahim Bozorgi.

Payam sought to dismiss the claims against him and to be removed as a party.

The court found there was no genuine issue for trial regarding Shabnam’s trust claims against Payam, but there was a genuine issue for trial on the fraudulent conveyance claim.

Payam’s request to be removed as a party was denied, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

The court issued a costs endorsement declining to order personal costs against the respondent's former counsel for non-compliance with the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction for Family Proceedings, specifically regarding the double-spacing requirement in a factum.

The judge found that existing rules (Family Law Rules R. 24(9) and Rules of Civil Procedure R. 57.07(1)) were insufficient to address such breaches, as they require a finding of costs run up without reasonable cause or wasted, which was not the harm in this case.

While acknowledging the non-compliance undermined court authority and interfered with the administration of justice, it was not deemed "serious" enough to warrant personal costs under the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The judge highlighted a persistent problem without sufficient remedial authority and recommended rule amendments to allow courts to hold lawyers accountable for obvious breaches of practice directions.

The applicant sought release of her share of proceeds from a jointly-owned property to close a condominium purchase and pay legal fees.

The primary respondent sought preservation of these funds as security for equalization claims.

A third-party respondent sought security for costs against the applicant for a trust claim.

The court ordered a partial release of funds for the condominium closing, with the remaining proceeds and a portion of the condominium's future sale proceeds to be held in trust as security for the primary respondent's equalization claims and the third-party respondent's potential costs.

The court found the trust claim against the third-party was not frivolous enough to warrant security for costs in the amount sought, but ordered a smaller amount to be held as security from the condo sale.

The applicant father brought motions to enforce a 2016 Offer to Settle for shared parenting and to strike certain paragraphs and exhibits from the respondent mother's affidavit, alleging breaches of confidentiality provisions under the Child and Family Services Act and a prior court order.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to permit the use of those documents and sought a s.30 assessment or, alternatively, the appointment of private counsel for the children.

The court dismissed the father's motion to enforce the Offer to Settle, finding it unreasonable given the children's changed circumstances and the high parental conflict.

The father's motion to strike the confidential material from the mother's affidavit was granted for the purpose of the current motion, but access to the protection file for trial was preserved.

The mother's motion for a s.30 assessment was dismissed, but her request for the appointment of private counsel for the children was granted, with costs to be shared by the parties.

The appellant and respondent appealed from a trial judge's order dealing with child support and spousal support.

The appellant sought to characterize a $75,000 advance as a payment on account of spousal support, while the respondent contended that the trial judge erred in calculating the length of cohabitation as 13 years instead of 16.5 years, which affected the duration of spousal support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal regarding the $75,000 payment and allowed the respondent's cross-appeal, finding that the period of cohabitation should be 16 years and 5 months, resulting in an increased duration of spousal support from 11 years to 14 years from the date of separation.

This trial concerned parenting and financial issues following a high-conflict marital breakdown.

The applicant father sought equal parenting time for the youngest child (Hakuin, 10) and custody of the middle child (Sophi, 16), while the respondent mother sought custody or shared custody of the three younger children and a therapeutic intervention for the older children who were estranged from her.

The court considered extensive professional evidence regarding parental alienation and justified rejection.

The court granted the father sole custody of Sophi, respecting her wishes given her age.

For Hakuin, the court maintained the status quo, with primary residence with the mother and the father's existing access schedule, finding this offered the best chance for Hakuin to maintain relationships with both parents despite concerns about sibling influence and parental alienation.

On financial matters, the court imputed income to both parents for child support calculations, ordered child support payments between them for Sophi and Hakuin, and granted spousal support to the mother.

The matrimonial home was ordered sold, with proceeds divided after adjustments.

Following a family law trial concerning custody, access, and mobility, the successful party sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $170,000 including costs of earlier motions.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considered the effect of an unaccepted offer to settle under Rule 18(14), the parties’ conduct during litigation, and the presumption that costs follow success.

The court found the successful party’s conduct reasonable and the opposing party’s conduct contributed to unnecessary trial length and litigation complexity.

However, the bill of costs did not clearly segregate financial issues from parenting issues, warranting a modest reduction.

Considering the opposing party’s limited financial circumstances as a discretionary factor, the court fixed costs at $105,000 inclusive.

Application under the Hague Convention seeking the return of a young child to Australia after the respondent parent remained in Ontario with the child following a trip from Melbourne.

The court considered whether the child’s habitual residence was Australia or Ontario and addressed defences of acquiescence and grave risk of harm under Article 13(b).

The evidence demonstrated that the parties had jointly relocated to Australia with a settled intention to live there, including relinquishing their Ontario residence and establishing living arrangements in Melbourne.

The court rejected claims that the move was merely exploratory and found no clear evidence of consent or acquiescence by the applicant to the child remaining in Ontario.

The respondent also failed to establish the high threshold of grave risk of harm necessary to prevent return.

The child was ordered returned to Australia with conditions and undertakings.