Chaitali Desai

The parties, who immigrated to Canada from India, engaged in a high-conflict family law dispute with proceedings in both jurisdictions.

The respondent mother brought a motion arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction and the case should be heard in India.

The applicant father brought a cross-motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached in July 2022 and sought temporary child support.

The court dismissed the mother's jurisdiction motion, finding Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter and was the appropriate forum.

The court granted the father's motion to enforce the settlement agreement, rejecting the mother's argument that it was accepted by mistake or invalidated by an Indian court injunction.

The mother was also ordered to pay temporary child support.

Following separation after an 18‑year marriage, the court determined several property and financial issues including ownership of foreign real estate, valuation and possession of jewellery, division of a pension, vehicle values, and post‑separation financial claims.

The court found the husband to be the beneficial owner of an apartment in India for equalization purposes and rejected his evidence regarding the alleged gift to his mother.

The court also concluded that the husband likely retained possession of the wife's jewellery and ordered payments relating to excluded and equalized jewellery value.

Applying s. 10.1(4) of the Family Law Act, the court ordered division of the husband’s pension at source.

Other disputed claims relating to household expenses and alleged hidden assets were largely dismissed or balanced out.

Following a prior endorsement directing the parties to agree on a counsellor for their child, the parties failed to reach agreement and the applicant provided written submissions proposing several counsellors.

The respondent did not provide written submissions.

After reviewing the proposed counsellors’ qualifications and availability, the court determined that any of three identified professionals were suitable.

The court ordered a process requiring the respondent to select one counsellor within ten days, failing which the applicant could choose.

The court also made interim orders allocating responsibility for counselling costs depending on the availability of coverage under the applicant’s benefits plan.