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.

The applicant father sought an equalization of net family property, while the respondent mother claimed ongoing and retroactive child support.

The respondent maternal grandfather claimed a resulting trust over the matrimonial home, alleging he loaned the mother funds to purchase it.

The court found the father rebutted the presumption of resulting trust, determining the funds were a gift.

The court set the date of separation as September 30, 2017, ordered the mother to pay an equalization payment, and imputed income to the father to calculate retroactive and ongoing child support, which was offset against the equalization payment.

The applicant sought continuation of a temporary restraining order against a former common law spouse under s. 46 of the Family Law Act.

The court held that the applicant had reasonable grounds to fear for her physical and psychological safety, relying on evidence of past domestic assault, later threatening conduct, the respondent's alleged criminal associations, and the respondent's knowledge that the applicant had provided information to police.

The court found the applicant's fear was legitimate and had a current relationship to more recent events, notwithstanding the age of some earlier incidents.

The restraining order was continued and the applicant, being substantially successful on the only live issue, received partial indemnity costs.

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.

In a family law proceeding, the parties were unable to agree on the appointment of a counsellor for their child.

The court reconsidered a prior endorsement after discovering that the respondent’s written submissions had not been included due to a clerical error.

Upon reviewing both parties’ submissions and the qualifications and availability of proposed counsellors, the court revoked the earlier endorsement and issued a new order appointing a counsellor for the child.

The court appointed the applicant’s proposed counsellor as the primary choice and designated an alternate if the first counsellor declined.

The order also addressed parental cooperation with counselling and allocated responsibility for payment of counselling costs, including coordination with the mother’s benefit plan.

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.