Archana Medhekar

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of A.A. regarding the return of her child to Bangladesh under the Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA) while refugee applications were pending.

The court found that the motion judge erred by failing to consider the impact of the outstanding refugee claims, the allegations of domestic violence, and the potential for serious harm to the child if returned.

The decision clarifies that the existence of a refugee claim does not automatically stay CLRA proceedings but is a significant factor in the analysis.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The parties separated after a 28-year marriage.

The applicant sought retroactive and prospective child and spousal support, equalization, and a restraining order.

The respondent had moved to Pakistan, ceased paying support, and breached multiple court orders.

The court imputed income to the respondent, awarded retroactive child support, child support arrears, and lump sum prospective child and spousal support.

To satisfy the respondent's total obligations of $155,652.51, the court ordered his 50% interest in the matrimonial home vested in the applicant.

A restraining order was also granted due to a history of family violence.

This is a panel review of a single judge's order dismissing a motion to stay a return order for an infant child to Bangladesh, pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal majority granted the review, set aside the stay dismissal, and granted a stay of the return order.

The majority found that the single judge erred in principle by giving insufficient weight to the serious issue of the relationship between the Children's Law Reform Act and pending refugee claims, and by misapplying the irreparable harm and balance of convenience tests, particularly regarding the child's best interests and the potential loss of refugee status.

The dissenting judge argued that the majority conducted a de novo review rather than applying deference to the single judge's discretionary order.

The Court of Appeal heard cross-motions within an appeal concerning a child's return to Bangladesh.

The mother (appellant) sought to stay a lower court order for the child's return, arguing a pending refugee claim should preclude the order, and also requested initials and a publication ban.

The father (respondent) sought security for costs for the appeal.

The court dismissed the mother's stay motion, finding no evidence of merit to the refugee claim or irreparable harm, and that the child's best interests favored return to Bangladesh.

The court granted the mother's request for initials and a limited publication ban.

The father's motion for security for costs was dismissed, as it would impede access to justice.

The applicant and respondent brought cross-motions in a family law proceeding.

The applicant sought financial disclosure, interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, a certificate of pending litigation, and interim child and spousal support.

The respondent sought an order for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court granted the applicant's requests for disclosure, exclusive possession, a certificate of pending litigation, and interim child support, noting her debilitating spinal condition and the ongoing pandemic.

The respondent's motion for the sale of the home was dismissed, and spousal support was deferred as the respondent was ordered to pay the home's maintenance costs.

The applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $11,053.80 following a successful motion to lift a stay of proceedings and obtain temporary spousal support.

The respondent sought costs of $2,000.00 payable in the cause and argued the applicant had acted unreasonably.

The court found the applicant was the successful party and entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The court rejected arguments that the applicant's behaviour was unreasonable and found that the respondent had acted in bad faith in commencing a divorce application in the Superior Court.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded costs of $7,000.00 rather than the full amount sought, payable in two installments.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to lift an automatic stay of proceedings triggered by the respondent's filing of a divorce application in Superior Court, and for temporary spousal support.

The applicant had previously filed an application for spousal support in Ontario Court of Justice.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that the applicant entered the marriage fraudulently to obtain immigration status and lacked clean hands to seek equitable relief.

The court found that the respondent acted in bad faith by filing the divorce application shortly before a scheduled hearing on spousal support, and that the applicant would suffer unreasonable prejudice if the stay remained in place.

The court lifted the stay and awarded temporary spousal support.

This family law application arose from an arranged marriage that ended without children.

The parties settled spousal support and divorce during trial, leaving property claims for determination.

The court addressed the respondent's assertion of a religious divorce in Pakistan, finding it unproven factually and legally due to lack of expert evidence on foreign law and credibility issues.

The court also determined that the P[...] Crescent house was not a matrimonial home, as the parties did not cohabit there as a family residence.

The valuation date for net family property equalization was set as April 19, 2016, when the applicant learned of the respondent's second marriage.

The applicant was awarded an equalization payment based on the respondent's interest in the P[...] Crescent house and his pension.

The applicant sought interim child support and sale of the matrimonial home, while the respondent sought to vary a non-dissipation order and for leave to dispose of his dental clinic interest.

The court determined the respondent's income for child support purposes by averaging his expert's valuations from 2013-2015, ordering retroactive and ongoing temporary child support.

The motion for occupancy rent was adjourned pending the sale of the matrimonial home, and the respondent's motion to vary the non-dissipation order was also adjourned.

This addendum to a judgment dated April 1, 2016, clarifies the distribution of proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home and orders for costs.

It directs the real estate lawyer to release funds from a holdback to Ms. Iqbal, representing her 50% share and an additional amount from Mr. Jamil's share.

Mr. Jamil is also ordered to pay a remaining balance and costs of $40,000 to Ms. Iqbal, payable to Legal Aid Ontario.

The husband brought a motion seeking increased access to the children and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The wife sought exclusive possession of the home and interim child and spousal support based on imputed income.

The court ordered the matrimonial home sold, finding that maintaining the property was economically unsustainable regardless of the husband’s income and that the wife failed to establish a compelling reason to prevent sale.

Interim spousal and child support were ordered based on an imputed income of $60,000 for the self‑employed husband, and structured access was granted with exchanges occurring at a police station due to bail conditions arising from pending assault charges.

The parties achieved mixed success and no costs were ordered.

A motion by a maternal grandfather to be added as a party to child protection proceedings, or alternatively to have specified rights to participate.

The child, a 15½-year-old girl, had been in the temporary care of the Children's Aid Society for one year following allegations of physical and emotional abuse by the mother and failure to protect by the father.

The grandfather proposed a plan for the child's placement in his care.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the grandfather had a legal interest in the proceedings and had proposed a carefully thought-out plan, the child's clear and consistent rejection of contact with him rendered the plan unlikely to be viable.

The court noted that the child's views and preferences are an important factor in determining best interests for a child of this age, and that the parents' counsel could adequately present the grandfather's plan without him being added as a party.

The parties settled a family law dispute at a pre‑trial, leaving only the issue of costs for determination.

The issues in the proceeding included custody, access, child support, section 7 expenses, health insurance coverage, and equalization of net family property.

The applicant had served an offer to settle that substantially formed the basis of the final settlement, while the respondent’s offer was served less than seven days before trial and was non‑severable except for equalization.

The court held that the applicant was the successful party and that the respondent’s late offer had limited significance.

Although the applicant sought full indemnity costs exceeding $15,000, the court fixed costs at $9,000 payable forthwith by the respondent.

Following the breakdown of a long-term marriage, the court addressed equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The respondent alleged reckless depletion of family assets through extensive credit-card financed online stock trading and sought an unequal division under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The court held that although the trading was imprudent and resulted in significant debt, it did not meet the high threshold of “unconscionability” required to depart from equalization.

The court rejected a claimed $600,000 loan from a family friend as an unenforceable and undocumented alleged debt.

Retroactive and ongoing spousal support were awarded based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines given the respondent’s economic disadvantage following a traditional and controlling marriage.