A. Naagar

The respondent, Shruti Bhatia, brought a motion seeking an order that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decline jurisdiction over divorce proceedings, arguing that India was the "clearly more appropriate" forum.

The court had previously established jurisdiction simpliciter under the Divorce Act.

The motion was dismissed, as the respondent failed to demonstrate that India was significantly more appropriate.

The court considered factors such as the location of parties and witnesses (noting the child's connections to India arose from unlawful abduction), the costs of transferring the case, and the potential for conflicting judgments or loss of juridical advantage, finding no compelling reason to displace Ontario's jurisdiction.

The applicant sought an order for the return of the child (SK) to Canada and a parenting order, arguing that the child was habitually resident in Ontario.

The respondent claimed Ontario had no jurisdiction, asserting SK was habitually resident in India.

The court found that SK was habitually resident in Ontario at the start of the application, as the respondent had unlawfully abducted the child to India and the applicant had not consented or acquiesced.

The court declined to make an immediate "chasing order" for the child's return, citing insufficient evidence on best interests and lack of express statutory authority, but ordered the respondent to file an answer to proceed to trial on parenting issues.