Mehwish Rasheed

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion, with leave, for access to a jointly owned condominium so she could reside there pending its sale, and for interim spousal support.

After a 28-year marriage, the respondent had been living in a boarding house with no kitchen access while the applicant retained exclusive possession of the mortgage-free matrimonial home.

The court addressed a threshold jurisdictional question regarding an Associate Justice's authority over real property, finding jurisdiction on the basis that the order was incidental to the support motion and did not determine property rights.

The court declined to impute additional income to the respondent beyond $32,000, finding insufficient evidence to rebut her claim of disability.

Using the applicant's income of approximately $216,000 from his 2024 Notice of Assessment, the court ordered interim spousal support of $4,500 monthly, below the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, accounting for the respondent's ability to reside in the condominium rent-free.

The decision addresses a high-conflict parenting dispute involving allegations of sexual abuse and parental alienation.

The court finds that the mother, Melanie Lynn Grillo, alienated the child, Zaria, from her father, Edwin Adam Lawrence Newton, and orders an immediate change of primary residence to the father, with the mother’s parenting time to be expanded at the father’s discretion.

The court finds the abuse allegations unsubstantiated and details the evidence of alienation, referencing leading case law on parental alienation and the best interests of the child.

The parties separated in 2004 and signed a separation agreement in 2005.

The applicant mother sought retroactive child support back to 2006, arguing the agreement required the respondent father to pay the full table amount for all three children until the youngest completed post-secondary education, regardless of where the children lived.

The respondent argued the agreement allowed support to be adjusted based on the Federal Child Support Guidelines and the children's actual residency, which had shifted primarily to him.

The court found the agreement ambiguous but interpreted it to allow adjustments based on the Guidelines.

The court declined to order retroactive support back to 2006, finding no blameworthy conduct by the respondent, and limited the retroactive adjustment to January 1, 2017.

The court also imputed an income of $15,000 to the applicant and ordered the respondent to continue providing a vehicle to the applicant until the youngest child completes post-secondary education.

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal three orders made by Faieta J. and J. Wilson J. in July and August 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $7,500.

The father brought a motion seeking 23 declaratory orders regarding disputed factual issues to undermine previous interim custody orders requiring the return of the children from Tunisia to Canada.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it inappropriate to make detailed findings of fact on a motion when not relevant to a substantive matter before the court.

The court noted the father had returned the children and suggested the Tunisian proceedings be permanently stayed to restore the pre-litigation status quo.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to the mother.

The applicant mother brought a motion for contempt against the respondent father for failing to return their two sons to Toronto by a specified date, in contravention of a prior court order.

The respondent filed a cross-motion seeking to vary the order, citing expired passports as the reason for non-compliance.

The court, without deciding the contempt or variation motions, issued an immediate order directing the respondent to attend the Canadian Embassy in Tunisia to obtain emergency travel documents for the children and to provide proof of compliance to the applicant.

Both the contempt motion and the cross-motion were adjourned to a later date.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to set aside ex parte interim orders, obtain joint custody, shared parenting, and permit the children to remain in Tunisia, citing cultural values and perceived lower COVID-19 risks.

The applicant mother had previously obtained ex parte orders for interim sole custody and the return of the children to Toronto, following the respondent's refusal to return them after a vacation.

The court found the children's habitual residence to be Toronto, as conceded by the respondent, and dismissed the respondent's motion, finding no justification to set aside or vary the prior orders.

The court ordered the immediate return of the children to Toronto and scheduled a case conference.

The applicant mother brought a motion for the immediate return of her two children from Tunisia, where the respondent father had taken them for a vacation and subsequently refused to return them to their habitual residence in Toronto.

The court determined that the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was not in force between Canada and Tunisia.

Exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, the court ordered the children's immediate return to the applicant's care in Toronto at the respondent's cost.

Ancillary orders included directing Canadian police services to assist in enforcement and granting leave for substituted service of documents on the respondent via email due to urgency and access to justice concerns.

The respondent was granted an opportunity to bring a motion to vary the order.

The applicant mother brought an ex parte motion for an interim sole custody order (a 'chasing order') and an order for the return of her two children, who were allegedly wrongfully retained by the respondent father in Tunisia.

The court granted the mother interim sole custody and ordered the father to surrender the children's passports upon their return to Canada.

However, the court declined to order the children's return under the Hague Convention, noting that such an application must be brought in the jurisdiction where the children are located (Tunisia).

The court also dismissed requests to stay the Tunisian proceedings, sever the divorce, and permit substituted service via email.