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 moving party sought leave to appeal a decision regarding the production of documents and removal of counsel.

The Divisional Court granted leave in part, noting conflicting jurisprudence on whether the intent to commit civil fraud vitiates solicitor-client privilege, and similar issues regarding documents photographed in breach of privacy.

Leave to appeal the refusal to remove the wife's lawyer as counsel of record was denied.

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 parties separated in 2016 after a short marriage.

The father had primary care and sole decision-making responsibility for their 9-year-old daughter for seven years following an incident where the mother surreptitiously removed the child to Winnipeg while experiencing mental health struggles.

The mother sought increased parenting time and joint decision-making responsibility.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to increase the mother's parenting time to 6 overnights out of 14 days, creating a shared parenting arrangement.

Due to high conflict and poor communication, the court ordered a parallel parenting regime where the parents must consult, but the mother has final say on health decisions and the father has final say on education and extra-curriculars.

The mother was also ordered to pay $12,136 in retroactive child support and ongoing set-off child support of $114 per month.

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 in a family law proceeding sought a certificate of pending litigation against real property after alleging that the respondent spouse transferred his interest to his parents for nominal consideration to defeat support and related financial claims.

Applying the fraudulent conveyance certificate of pending litigation framework, the court found a high probability of success on the underlying support litigation, sufficient evidence that the impugned transfer was intended to hinder enforcement, and a balance of convenience favouring preservation of the property’s equity.

The court relied on the spouse’s support arrears, lack of other meaningful assets, inconsistent evidence concerning alleged parental debts, and multiple badges of fraud.

The motion was granted and the applicant received $6,000 in costs.

The applicant father brought a motion for a temporary shared parenting plan on a 2-2-3 schedule for the parties' two young children.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, seeking to maintain a schedule with no overnight parenting time, relying on uncorroborated allegations of family violence.

The court found that the father had historically shared parenting responsibilities and that the mother's unilateral termination of overnight access was not justified by the evidence.

The court granted the motion, ordering a phased-in 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule and shared decision-making.

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.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, both parties brought motions regarding parenting and access to their two teenage children.

The applicant father sought to enforce access and mandate therapy, while the respondent mother sought to suspend access and obtain a Voice of the Child Report.

The court dismissed the mother's motions, finding that a Voice of the Child Report would only subject the children to further manipulation given the extreme parental conflict.

The court ordered the children to continue therapy under strict non-interference conditions and directed the matter to proceed to an expedited trial.

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.

The appellant mother appealed an order directing the return of her child to Australia pursuant to the Hague Convention.

The application judge found the child was habitually resident in Australia and that returning the child would not pose a grave risk of harm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's assessment of habitual residence or the grave risk of harm threshold.

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.

The applicant father and respondent mother contested custody of their three-year-old child.

The mother had previously taken the child to Germany without the father's consent, leading to a Hague Convention order returning the child to Canada.

The mother sought custody and permission to relocate to Germany, while the father sought sole custody in Canada.

The court found that the mother's lingering anger and history of interfering with the father's access posed a significant risk to the child's relationship with the father.

Applying the best interests test, the court awarded sole custody to the father and established an access schedule for the mother, contingent on whether she remained in Canada or returned to Germany.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his motion to vary a final child support order.

He argued the motion judge failed to consider evidence of a material change in circumstances, erred in allowing the respondent to amend her pleadings to seek a non-dissipation order for the children's RESPs, and demonstrated bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings, no prejudice from the pleading amendment, and no basis for the bias claim.

The appellant father appealed an order under the Hague Convention requiring the return of his 13-year-old daughter to Mexico.

The child had previously been granted Convention refugee status in Canada based on abuse by the respondent mother.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no conflict between the Hague Convention and the principle of non-refoulement in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The court held that a refugee child's s. 7 Charter rights are engaged in a Hague application, requiring a risk assessment and procedural fairness, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.

A new hearing was ordered.

The mother brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of her 13-year-old child to Mexico.

The child had previously made a successful refugee claim in Canada based on allegations of abuse by the mother.

The motion judge ordered the child's return.

The father appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by failing to conduct a meaningful risk assessment regarding the return of a recognized refugee.

The court set aside the return order and directed a new hearing.