Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: October 7, 2025

Court File No.: 24-205

Between:

Kanwaljeet Singh Hura Applicant

— AND —

Neeraj Kaur Respondent

Before: Justice J. Beasley

Heard on: September 17-18-19 and 22, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on: October 7, 2025

Counsel:

• Stephen Eaton, for the Applicant
• Kristy Maurina, for the Respondent

Reasons for Judgment

Beasley, J.:

Background

[1] Dr. Hura and Dr. Kaur married on March 28, 2010. They separated on September 29, 2020. There are two children of the marriage: Ikleen Hura, born […], 2012 and Harleen Kaur Hura, born […], 2019. Dr. Hura is the children's father. Dr. Kaur is the children's mother.

Mediated Settlement Agreement and Divorce Decree

[2] At the time of the separation, the parties resided in Texas. Proceedings were started by Dr. Kaur in Texas in 2020.

[3] Dr. Hura and Dr. Kaur entered into a Mediated Settlement Agreement on August 22, 2022. The Final Decree of Divorce incorporates the terms agreed upon on August 22, 2022, and indicates that the case was heard on the same date.

[4] The Mediated Settlement Agreement was not subject to revocation. Any disputes regarding the interpretation or intent of the Mediated Settlement Agreement in drafting the final order were to be submitted to the mediator/arbitrator. The final wording was not agreed upon until February 2024. The Final Decree of Divorce is dated March 4, 2024.

[5] Dr. Hura commenced this Application in April 2024.

[6] The Final Order/Final Decree of Divorce of the District Court of Bexar County, Texas, USA, dated August 22, 2022 and signed on March 4, 2024, was recognized by this Court under s.41 of the Children's Law Reform Act on September 19, 2024, on consent. Section 41(2) provides that an order made by an extra-provincial tribunal that a court recognizes shall be deemed to be an order of the court and enforceable as such.

[7] Section 42(1) of the Children's Law Reform Act provides that, upon application, a court by order may supersede an extra-provincial order in relation to decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact with respect to a child where the court is satisfied that there has been a material change in circumstances that affects or is likely to affect the best interests of the child.

[8] The parenting terms of the March 4, 2024 Divorce Decree include:

(1) Parenting Plan: The Court finds that the provisions in this decree relating to the rights and duties of the parties with relation to the children, possession of and access to the children, child support, and optimizing the development of a close and continuing relationship between each party and the children constitute the parties' agreed parenting plan.

(2) Joint Managing Conservators: Both parents are joint managing conservators of the children and have the right to receive information from the other parent, to confer before decisions are made, access to information about the children, including from schools and medical practitioners, the right to consult with physician, dentist, or psychologist of the children; the right to consult with school officials concerning the children's welfare and educational status, including school activities and the duty to inform the other conservator of the children in a timely manner of significant information concerning the health, education, and welfare of the children.

(3) Primary Residence: Dr. Kaur has the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the children within Canada and the United States of America.

(4) Medical Decisions: Dr. Kaur has the right to consent to medical treatment after a good faith effort to confer with Dr. Hura (Dr. Hura has a reciprocal right).

(5) Education Decisions: Dr. Kaur has the right to make education decisions after a good faith effort to confer with Dr. Hura.

(6) Immigration Applications: Dr. Kaur has the exclusive right to apply for permanent residence, "green card", permanent residency for the children in Canada or the United States.

(7) Passport and Visa: Dr. Kaur has the exclusive right to apply for a passport or visa for the children in Canada or the United States; if Dr. Hura's consent is required, consent to be provided within 15 days unless the parent has good cause for withholding that consent.

(8) Government Entities: Dr. Hura has a right, independent of Dr. Kaur, to deal with government entities, after a good faith effort to confer with Dr. Kaur.

(9) Travel: Both parents can travel with the children in Canada and the USA; otherwise, consent is needed.

(10) Parenting Schedule Scenarios: Three parenting schedule scenarios were set out depending on the parents' distance from each other.

(11) Parents 50 miles or less apart:

(a) Dr. Hura to have the right of parenting time with the children:

• (i) first, third and fifth weekend of each month during the school term
• (ii) on all other weekends in the year: first, third and fifth of the month (outside of school term)
• (iii) weekend timing from Friday at school until school resumption; non-school time Friday at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday at 6:00 p.m.; extensions for Monday and Friday holidays
• (iv) Thursdays overnights during the school term
• (v) Spring school vacation in even-numbered years
• (vi) Summer: with written notice by April 1st: 30 days (between the day after school ends to 7 days before school returns) or if no notice, July 1 to July 31

(b) Dr. Kaur to have the right of parenting time with the children:

• (i) Spring school vacation in odd-numbered years
• (ii) Summer: if Dr. Kaur provided notice by April 15, Dr. Kaur could have the children one weekend of Dr. Hura's extended summer vacation; also, if notice by April 15 or 14 days' notice after April 16, Dr. Kaur could designate one additional weekend

(12) Parents 50-100 miles apart: Same provisions except Dr. Hura's Thursday nights were from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., rather than overnight.

(13) Parents more than 100 miles apart:

(a) Dr. Hura to have the right of parenting time with the children:

• (i) for four days each month during the regular school term on 14 days' notice
• (ii) every spring break
• (iii) Summer: with written notice by April 1st: 42 days (between the day after school ends to 7 days before school returns) or if no notice, June 15 to July 27

(b) Dr. Kaur to have the right of parenting time with the children:

• (i) if Dr. Kaur provides notice by April 15, Dr. Kaur could have the children one weekend of Dr. Hura's extended summer vacation if more than 30 days or two non-consecutive weekends if Dr. Hura has more than 30 days
• (ii) if Dr. Kaur provides notice by April 15, 21 days of the summer other than the father's time (in no more than two segments)

(14) Holiday Periods: There were also holiday periods designated that were unaffected by distance, such as Christmas, Thanksgiving, children's birthdays, Father's Day, Mother's Day, and Indian holidays. Dr. Kaur had possession of the children on all non-designated periods.

(15) Reacquaintance Period: Dr. Hura was entitled to a 7-day parenting period on 14 days' notice when he returned to Canada or the USA to establish a residence. Dr. Hura was residing in India when the Mediated Settlement Agreement was agreed to in August of 2022.

(16) Child Support: Instead of child support, Dr. Hura was to pay all travel expenses for his parenting time.

(17) Communication: Each parent had the right to communicate with the children by WhatsApp between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m.

(18) Weekly Updates: The party in possession of the children was to provide a weekly update to the other parent via email.

(19) Right of First Refusal: If a parent could not care for the children for more than 24 hours of their parenting time, the other parent had a right of first refusal of care.

(20) Children's Bill of Rights: The Divorce Decree includes a Children's Bill of Rights to protect the children from the adult conflict and to allow the children to have a positive relationship with both parents. The enforcement is by contempt of Court.

Issues

[9] The following issues are before the Court:

(1) What date should be used for the purposes of determining a material change in circumstances, August 22, 2022 or March 4, 2024?

(2) Has a material change in circumstances that affects or is likely to affect the best interests of the children occurred?

• (a) If not, the application to supersede the relocation provisions shall be dismissed.
• (b) If so, is a geographical restriction in the children's best interests?

(3) On what date should the March 4, 2024 Divorce Decree child support provisions be changed?

(4) What is Dr. Hura's income for child support purposes? Should income be imputed to Dr. Hura?

(5) Has Dr. Kaur breached the Final Order?

(6) If so, what consequences should there be?

[10] I will address the issue in 3 parts: relocation, child support and breach.

Father's Position on Relocation

[11] Dr. Hura seeks to supersede the March 4, 2024 Divorce Decree and impose a relocation restriction. Dr. Hura asserts that Dr. Kaur has a demonstrated pattern of conduct to limit or remove him from the children's lives. She has interfered with his parenting time, made false allegations, encouraged the children to participate in false allegations against him, and made concerted efforts to misrepresent her address to retain the 100-mile parenting schedule, rather than allowing the more generous under-50-mile parenting schedule. He asserts that these efforts amount to a material change in circumstances which impacts the children's best interests.

[12] He asks the Court to supersede the March 4, 2024 Divorce Decree term, which provides that Dr. Kaur has exclusive responsibility for designating the children's primary residence and stipulates that the children's primary residence cannot be changed without the consent of both parties or a court order. The test for a relocation would be the children's best interests. Alternatively, he seeks an order that is. 39.1-39.4 of the Children's Law Reform Act apply.

[13] Dr. Hura seeks the following Order:

The Final Decree of Divorce issued by Justice Laura Salinas of the District Court of Bexar County, Texas, on March 4, 2024 ("Texas Order"), and recognized as an extra-provincial order under s.41 on September 19, 2024, by Justice Cheung, shall be varied pursuant to s.42 to include the following language:

(a) The Respondent Mother shall not relocate with the Children, namely Ikleen Hora born […], 2012, and Harleen Kaur Hura, born […], 2019, outside the boundaries of the Region of Peel, Province of Ontario, in the absence of the Applicant Father's written consent, or further court order.

(b) The provisions of the Texas Order that permit the Respondent Mother to designate the primary residence of the Children anywhere in Canada or the USA without the Applicant Father's consent shall be of no force and effect.

Mother's Position on Relocation

[14] Dr. Kaur submits that the father has failed to establish a material change in circumstances that affects the best interests of the children since the issuance of the Texas Divorce Decree on March 4, 2024, or the Mediated Settlement Agreement on February 22, 2022. The parties' current proximity—living within 50 miles of each other—was expressly contemplated and foreseen in the Mediated Settlement Agreement and Divorce Decree. The Texas Divorce Decree, a 51-page consent order, was the product of extensive mediation, legal advice, and negotiation, and includes detailed parenting schedules based on proximity.

[15] The agreement provides for parenting time scenarios based on the parties' residence, categorized as being within 50 miles, between 50 and 100 miles, or more than 100 miles apart. Each scenario includes provisions for regular parenting time, school and holiday schedules, as well as spring and summer breaks. The order also grants Dr. Kaur the exclusive right to designate the children's residence within Canada or the United States, and to apply for their immigration documents, including permanent residency and citizenship.

[16] Dr. Kaur further submits that the children's relationship with the father is positive and stable. The children are happy, perform well in school, and have enjoyed regular parenting time with the father since January 2024. The father himself acknowledged that the children love him, behave well with him, and want to spend time with him.

[17] Dr. Kaur denies allegations of coaching the children and maintains that their relationship with the father has not been negatively impacted. She relies on the CAS observations of the positive father-daughter relationship.

[18] Dr. Kaur notes that the father brought similar violation motions in Texas, before the Divorce Decree, and that both parties were admonished for their conduct: Dr. Hura was required to provide the full 14-day notice, and Dr. Kaur was prohibited from adding conditions to his parenting time.

[19] Dr. Kaur's planned relocation to San Antonio, Texas, in October 2025 is supported by her applications for an H1B work visa and an EB5 investor visa, which aim to secure a green card for Ikleen and provide her and Ikleen with equal opportunities in both Canada and the United States.

Issue: What date should be used for the purposes of determining a material change in circumstances, August 22, 2022 or March 4, 2024?

[20] I find that August 22, 2022 should be the date for the purposes of a material change in circumstances. On that date, the parties agreed to the terms of settlement through mediation. The terms were not subject to revocation. It took a year and a half to convert the 8-page Mediated Settlement Agreement into the 51-page Divorce Decree. The Mediated Settlement Agreement provided for changes to wording and interpretation to be resolved through mediation or arbitration.

[21] If I am wrong, and the date of the Divorce Decree, March 4, 2024, should be used as it is the date of the final order, I agree with the Applicant that a material change has been shown from that date as well.

[22] The parties agree on the test to be applied. Section 42(1) of the Children's Law Reform Act provides that, upon application, a court, by order, may supersede an extra-provincial order in relation to decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact with respect to a child where the court is satisfied that there has been a material change in circumstances that affects or is likely to affect the best interests of the child and the child is habitually resident in Ontario at the commencement of the Application.

Issue: Has a material change in circumstances occurred?

[23] I find that a material change in circumstances has occurred that affects or is likely to affect the best interests of the children which was neither foreseen nor could reasonably have been contemplated in August of 2022 or March of 2024.

[24] The Mediated Settlement Agreement and the Divorce Decree did not contemplate the flagrant breach and misrepresentation of the children's address by Dr. Kaur, nor the incorrect application of the 100-mile parenting schedule, which was the most restrictive of the three.

[25] "Material change" means a change, such that, if known at the time, would likely have resulted in different terms in the order. If the matter which is relied on as constituting a material change was known at the relevant time, it cannot be relied on as the basis for variation. To determine the first stage of establishing a material change, the court should only take a limited look at evidence predating the order to understand how it was made. Once the material change is demonstrated, the court can engage in a full [best interests] inquiry, including facts that predate the order. Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CarswellSask 199 (S.C.C.) at paras 17, 18.

[26] Dr. Kaur urges me to note that Dr. Hura asserted breaches of the temporary orders both before the Mediated Settlement Agreement and before the Divorce Decree and that his complaints are not new and should not form the basis of a material change in circumstances. While there were complaints of violations, in particular of the daily phone call, a consent order providing for daily phone calls should allow parties to have faith that the term will be honoured from that day forward. In this case, there are many more serious events that are likely to impact the children.

[27] In Griffin v. Bootsma, [2004] O.J. No. 2781 (S.C.J.), the trial judge held that the parties could not have anticipated the conflict at the time of settlement. Justice LeMay found the same principle applied in Lopatowski v. Lopatowski, 2024 ONSC 3833, at paras 75-79.

[28] I agree that it is not a material change that the parties reside within 50 miles of proximity. The parenting schedule depends on proximity. Location changes were specifically contemplated and, therefore, are foreseeable.

[29] The father agreed to these terms knowingly and without duress. The order does not contain any provision for variation based solely on proximity or duration of residence within a certain radius. A material change must be unforeseen or not reasonably contemplated at the time of the order. Dr. Kaur asserts that the father's current circumstances were contemplated and do not meet the threshold for variation under section 42 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

[30] The father does not rely on the current proximity as the basis for the material change. I agree that it is not a material change that the parties reside within 50 miles of each other. The parenting schedule depends on proximity. Location changes were specifically contemplated and, therefore, were foreseeable.

[31] In July of 2021, Dr. Kaur relocated from San Antonio to Kentucky. In February 2022, she moved to Hamilton, Ontario. In August 2022, Dr. Kaur moved to Prince George, British Columbia. In March of 2023, she moved to Brampton, Ontario. Frequent relocations are not the basis for a material change in this case. The mother was given the ability to determine the primary residence of the children. No limit was included. The father does not rely on the number of relocations as the basis for the material change.

[32] At the time of the Mediated Settlement Agreement, Dr. Hura was residing in India. The terms provide for three different parenting schedules based on the proximity of the parents' residences. His return to North America is not a material change.

[33] Both parents are doctors. Dr. Kaur is a radiologist. Dr. Hura is a pediatrician. At the time of the Mediated Settlement Agreement, Dr. Kaur was searching for work, but the location of a new position was uncertain. The terms of the Mediated Settlement Agreement and Divorce Decree prioritize the children's Canadian or American residency. Both parents are from India, and travel to India requires consent.

[34] Dr. Hura urges me to find that Dr. Kaur's conduct is limiting and interfering with his parenting time, which is a material change in circumstances. Dr. Kaur's conduct, including misrepresenting her address, falsely representing that the 100-mile parenting schedule was applicable and interfering with his parenting time, was not anticipated at the time of the Mediated Settlement Agreement or Divorce Decree. I agree.

[35] I agree that the burden is on the father. I find he has met the burden.

[36] At the time of the Divorce Decree, Dr. Kaur had just advised, through a January 11, 2024, affidavit, that she was residing in Brampton as of December 1, 2023. Throughout 2023, Dr. Kaur represented that Dr. Kaur and the children are living in Prince George, BC. At the time of the Divorce Decree, Dr. Hura was residing in Guelph; the actual address was not provided.

[37] The significance of Dr. Kaur misrepresenting her address from March 13, 2023 to January 11, 2024, is substantial. From Guelph to Brampton is under 50 miles, and Dr. Hura would have been entitled to parenting time with the children on alternate weekends, etc. Instead, the parties operated under a parenting schedule that exceeded 100 miles, which allowed Dr. Hura four days per month with the children. This is a serious interference with the father-daughter relationship.

[38] Dr. Kaur asserts that she did not misrepresent her location. And even if she did, she says that she did not know Dr. Hura's exact address in Guelph. Dr. Hura moved to Canada in May of 2023. He indicated that he had substandard housing as he was alone in Ontario and his children were residing in British Columbia. He had expected to travel out to British Columbia for parenting time.

[39] For Dr. Kaur, the misrepresentation of her address limited the parenting time to a 100-mile schedule. Even at the trial, Dr. Kaur was hiding her 2023 address.

[40] Questioning occurred for the parties. Dr. Kaur asked the court not to rely on her answers from the questioning, as she was ill on the day of the questioning. It turned out that she had not taken her blood pressure medication for the three previous days. During questioning, she refused to answer where she had been living in 2023, despite numerous questions being asked to elicit the address. She then indicated it was in the Mediated Settlement Agreement. It was not. It was also not included in the October 2023 motion regarding the violations outlined in her trial affidavit. She asked the court to rely on her trial affidavit as the more reliable testimony. It was not more trustworthy.

[41] The misrepresentation of the Brampton address was not simply an omission on the part of Dr. Kaur. Dr. Hura had returned to Canada and provided notice of parenting time in the spring of 2023. Given that he understood that children were in British Columbia, he was entitled to the initial 7 days reacquaintance time and 4 days per month, as well as extended summer time.

[42] Dr. Hura requested that his seven-day parenting time occur in May 2023. Dr. Kaur advised that she would not be in Prince George that week due to a work emergency. She said that the children had to travel to Toronto with her and provided him with the Brampton address for pickup. At that time, she had been living in Brampton for two months. When his parenting time ended on May 26, 2023, and Dr. Kaur advised Dr. Hura to bring the children back to the same address at 3:00 p.m. sharp, he needed to be on time, as they had to return.

[43] Dr. Hura gives notice to Dr. Kaur of eight days of summer parenting time from July 27th to August 3rd, 2023. He advised that he is coming to Prince George, and he provided an Airbnb address. Dr. Kaur then advised that she will be on vacation in Toronto and that he can choose a different date at the end of August when they will return to Prince George or pick up the children in Toronto. In a further email, Dr. Kaur states that the children wanted to meet their cousins in Toronto, who are on vacation. Dr. Kaur and the children had been residing in Brampton since March.

[44] In November 2023, Dr. Hura provided 14 days' notice of his four-day visit from November 27th to December 4th, along with details of his planned stay in Prince George. Dr. Kaur advises him that the children will be coming to Toronto from November 27th to December 2nd for the holidays to meet their cousins and extended family. She tells him he will save money by not travelling to British Columbia. Her email also states that the children need to see where their Papa lives and that the children are tired of staying in Airbnbs. Dr. Kaur continues in another e-mail that the maternal grandmother is quite ill and the children want to see her. She says her flights are non-refundable and booked, and that his hotel would likely be refundable. Dr. Kaur, the children and her mother have been living in Brampton since March 2023.

[45] On December 3, 2023, Dr. Kaur prompts Dr. Hura about when she can pick up the children, as they have flights back to Vancouver that she does not want to miss.

[46] Throughout this time period, Dr. Kaur lives in Brampton with her mother and children. Dr. Hura is having daily WhatsApp calls with the children. He sees them three times between May and November 2023 and believes they reside in Prince George, British Columbia.

[47] It is inconceivable that the children were not cautioned by their mother not to disclose their Ontario residence to their father during this period. At that time, the children were 4 and 11 years old. The mother's encouragement and or insistence that Ikleen, in particular, keep secrets from her father is of grave concern. The father-child conversations had to include day-to-day events such as school, their vacation to Toronto to visit cousins, extended family and their sick grandmother. All such discussions hid lies. The mother's misrepresentations compelled the children to keep their mother's secrets and lie to their father. This exposure to adult conflict creates a loyalty bind for the children and interferes with their relationship with their father.

[48] Dr. Kaur's misrepresentations interfered with the father's parenting time throughout most of 2023. This is the material change in circumstances. I also find that the pattern of interference continued throughout 2024 and 2025. This is also a material change in circumstances that affects or is likely to affect the best interests of the children which was neither foreseen nor could reasonably have been contemplated in August of 2022 or March of 2024.

[49] After January 2024, the under-50-mile parenting schedule was in place.

[50] In June of 2024, Dr. Hura was scheduled to have the children in his care for the weekend of June 7-9, 2024. On June 7, 2024, Dr. Kaur claimed the children were ill and that he could not have his weekend with the children. Dr. Kaur took the children to a walk-in clinic on Friday, June 7, 2024. Dr. Hura offered to attend the clinic also. Dr. Kaur declined. Dr. Kaur then travels with the children to Windsor to see a good friend and attend a housewarming on the same weekend. Dr. Kaur and the children remain in Windsor and celebrate a child's birthday on Monday with the friend's family. On Tuesday, June 11, 2024, Dr. Kaur enrolls the children in a school in Windsor, and they attend for one day.

[51] Immediately, Dr. Hura learns of the new school registration, and his counsel sends a letter to Dr. Kaur's lawyer. He knows of the Windsor school registration from the Brampton school when the records are requested. Dr. Kaur's evidence is that she did not intend to relocate to Windsor. I do not accept her evidence. Dr. Kaur is a radiologist and works from home. She completed school enrollment forms. The most likely scenario is that over the weekend, Dr. Kaur decided to relocate the children to Windsor. The family returned to Brampton on Tuesday as they had only packed for the weekend. Then her lawyer received an urgent letter from Dr. Hura's lawyer, as he had learned of the Windsor school registration when Brampton received the records transfer request. The Windsor school principal testified. This was the only time she was aware of that children were enrolled in a school for a day.

[52] Under the Mediated Settlement Agreement and the Divorce Decree, Dr. Kaur has the sole ability to determine the primary residence of the children. If she had relocated to Windsor, the 100-mile parenting schedule would have been applicable again. This would have limited Dr. Hura's parenting time with the children.

[53] Dr. Kaur continued with her efforts to limit and interfere with Dr. Hura's parenting time with the children. On July 2, 2024, Dr. Kaur called the police when the children were in Dr. Hura's care. Her testimony changed as to the reasons why. Initially, she said it was a wellness check as she had not had her daily WhatsApp calls with the children. She later said it was because the children had not been returned as required. Dr. Hura was entitled 30 days in the summer. Dr. Kaur was entitled to one or two weekends off during the summer, provided notice was given. It was not offered. Dr. Kaur did not allow Dr. Hura to have his weekend parenting time in August 2024, as she claimed she was on vacation with the children in Thunder Bay. Under the Divorce Decree, she was not entitled to August. Also, her evidence was not credible. The drive is almost 1400 kilometres. She indicated it was a 10-hour drive. At questioning, she was asked for any proof that she had travelled, paid for food, gas or hotels during the trip, etc.. She provided none. I find that she claimed to be on vacation with the children to thwart the father's parenting time, despite not being entitled to the time with the children. The trip never occurred.

[54] In June of 2025, Dr. Kaur contacted the Guelph police and alleged that Dr. Hura had taken inappropriate photos of the children, specifically nude photos. The police records were not available at trial as Dr. Kaur declined to consent to their disclosure. No charges were laid. The CAS investigated. Initially, a male child protection worker met with Dr. Kaur and the children. Dr. Kaur then asked for a female worker. The new female worker testified at trial. The child protection worker's evidence was that during her interview with Hakleen, Hakleen could hear her mother practicing the questions and answers with Ikleen, which Hakleen had also practiced for her interview. The children were expected to answer the questions correctly. Dr. Kaur coached the children to answer negatively about their interactions with their father and his taking of pictures of them. Dr. Hura acknowledged that he had taken a picture of a changing mole on his daughter's leg while she was fully clothed. The CAS found that the children had been exposed to the post-separation conflict between their parents.

[55] Dr. Kaur urges me to note that the father's parenting time was not interfered with during the police and CAS investigation, and to find that she supports his relationship with the children. I disagree.

[56] Dr. Kaur made a false allegation to the police about inappropriate pictures of children. Dr. Hura is a pediatrician. His relationship with his children and his professional and financial security were put at risk. The children made allegations about photos, an open palm face slap and sexual touching when interviewed at their mother's home. When the children were interviewed at their father's home, their biggest issue was that he did not let them jump on the bed. The child protection worker found that the children had been coached and opined that their demeanour and body language were not indicative of truth when interviewed at their mother's home. Dr. Kaur claimed that there had been a misinterpretation, but cautioned that men had a dark side.

[57] Dr. Hura records the children in his living room and has the capacity to record in his car from his dashcam. His evidence included that CAS had recommended recording in the public area of the home. The child protection worker's testimony indicated she had not made this recommendation.

[58] Dr. Kaur had questioned whether the children had the right to record their interaction with their father. Then Ikleen took the glasses to her father's home, which had the capacity to record. Dr. Kaur explained that Ikleen was excited about the glasses, but she had not realized that Ikleen had taken the glasses to her father's home. She regretted this occurrence.

[59] During her questioning before trial, Dr. Kaur was evasive about whether she had coached the children and could not recall her complaint to the CAS. Dr. Kaur had not denied the coaching when asked by the CAS worker. There is great concern that Dr. Kaur shows no insight into the impact her conduct has on the children and their relationship with their father. This is another incident where Dr. Kaur has involved the children in a falsehood to interfere with the father-daughter relationship. This places the children in a loyalty bind.

[60] In July of 2025, Dr. Kaur was offered a job with the Cleveland Clinic. She would be working as a radiologist from home and would need to be located in the USA. She would plan to relocate to San Antonio, Texas. Dr. Kaur was initially evasive about her visa application or status in the States for work. It appears that her employer has applied for an H-1 visa, which would allow her to work in the U.S.. A letter with an employment offer has been tendered. No proof of the H1 Visa or the status of the application was provided.

[61] In addition, Dr. Kaur applied for an EB-5 visa in July 2025. Her immigration lawyer testified at the trial. The EB5 Visa is an investment Visa. It requires an investment of $800,000 U.S. in the United States. Given the number of annual visas, the rural investment visa, of which 140 are available per year for individuals born in India, is the most likely to be granted. The investment would need to create at least 10 jobs. The purpose of the EB-5 application is to provide Ikleen with the opportunity to obtain a green card. It can be a long process. It may be quicker if the application is made while residing in the USA. The Application has been started, and if Dr. Kaur can move to the USA, a change in status can be sought. This would mean that Ikleen's age would be "set" as of the date of the Application, and she would be eligible for a green card, even if the process takes years, which could happen if a backlog occurs for Indian citizens. Hakleen was born in the USA.

[62] Dr. Kaur's evidence is that the parties wished for both children to have the maximum benefit of U.S. residency. She can apply for Visas, passports, etc, for the children under the Mediated Settlement Agreement and the DIVORCE DECREE. The green card process can take significantly longer if the Applicant is outside the United States. The lawyer's evidence was that a backlog could occur, but that the current time may be 3 years. Ikleen is 13 years old and will not age out until the age of 21. The aging out only occurs if the application is made while residing outside of the USA.

[63] I find that Dr. Kaur also claimed to be on vacation with the children in August 2025 in Alberta, but this trip did not occur. She was not entitled to the vacation and fabricated the trip to interfere with the father's parenting time. She provided no proof of the vacation or the flights.

[64] At trial, Dr. Kaur's evidence was that she was under a mistaken belief that she was entitled to vacation time with the children in August of 2024 and 2025.

[65] The material change is the concerted efforts and pattern of interference by Dr. Kaur in the parenting time for the children and their father, her misrepresentation of her address resulting in a limited parenting schedule, her making of false allegations, and her involvement of the children in her conduct and falsehoods against their father.

[66] Dr. Kaur urges me to find that her actions has not had hurt the children's relationship with their father. As observed by the CAS in the summer of 2025, both children are comfortable with their father. Dr. Hura's own evidence is that the children are their happy selves with him. One cannot ascertain the cost of the children's loyalty bind on their relationship with their father.

Issue: If not, the application to supersede the relocation provisions shall be dismissed.

[67] I have found that a material change has occurred. A fresh inquiry into the children's best interests is needed. There is no presumption that the existing arrangement should continue, Persaud 2009 ONCA 782.

Issue: If so, is a geographical restriction in the children's best interests?

[68] I find that a geographical restriction is in the children's best interests.

[69] It was not foreseeable that the mother would engage in a course of conduct to restrict and interfere with the father's parenting time. Dr. Kaur has already proposed a move to Texas. If a geographical restriction is not imposed, the likelihood is that Dr. Kaur will move again to ensure that the 100-mile parenting schedule applies.

[70] The children have been exposed to the mother's campaign to limit their father's parenting time with them. This is emotionally harmful. The children have been exposed to parental conflict. Dr. Kaur has involved the children in deception of their father. Dr. Kaur's lack of insight is detrimental to the children. The children have been placed in a loyalty bind by her actions.

[71] I will vary the Order to require the consent of Dr. Hura or a court order for any relocation outside the boundaries of the Region of Peel, Province of Ontario, in the absence of the Applicant Father's written consent, or further court order.

Father's Position on Child Support

[72] Dr. Hura requests that his income for child support purposes include his employment income, retained earnings for the year grossed up, investment income and other declared income. For 2024, the Applicant Father's income for support purposes was $178,142, calculated as follows: $120,000.00 of employment income, $57,133.00 of retained earnings, $54 of investment income, and $955 of other taxable income.

[73] He seeks an order that, commencing October 1, 2025, his child support obligation be $2,415 CAD, and that the arrears be set as of September 30, 2025, at $10,740.00. The commencement date for the support would be March 2025, after the Amended Answer was served claiming child support.

[74] At the time of the Mediated Settlement Agreement, Dr. Hura was residing in India. He had returned to India to care for his ailing father. He was in an accident and broke his leg during his time in India. He had 3 months of bed rest and then was on crutches, etc.. He felt his presence was necessary to look after his parents during his father's illness and COVID. He did work in India. His 2022 income was equivalent to $ 27,000 Canadian. Dr. Kaur asks that income be imputed to him while he was in India. Dr. Hura opposes the imputation of income.

[75] Dr. Hura's 2023 income in India was $ 86,848 Canadian. In 2024, he incorporated.

[76] Dr. Kaur had requested child support in 2023 in the Texas proceeding. The litigation was resolved by the March 4, 2024 Divorce Decree, and the issue was not pursued further. The Mediated Settlement Agreement and the Divorce Decree provide no child support from either parent. Dr. Hura was responsible for all the children's travel costs.

[77] Dr. Kaur filed an Answer to the Ontario Application on July 7, 2024, which claimed child support. The Answer was then withdrawn. An Amended Answer was served on July 26, 2024, and support was not claimed. An Amended Answer was served February 24, 2025, and support was once again claimed. A consent order for support, based on an income of $120,000, was entered into on April 29, 2025.

Mother's Position on Child Support

[78] Dr. Kaur submits that the Mediated Settlement Agreement and the Divorce Decree provided that neither party would pay child support, based on the father's representation that he was not earning income at the time. The father has since agreed to pay child support and to include corporate retained earnings and pre-tax income under section 18 of the Child Support Guidelines.

[79] For the 2024 tax year, the father reported employment income of $120,000, while corporate financial statements show salaries of $139,729. Bank statements reveal deposits totalling $297,585 into his business account in 2024, and $291,258 in the first seven months of 2025. Dr. Kaur submits that the father did not maximize his income while residing in India and that retroactive support is warranted.

[80] She relies on leading cases, including D.B.S. v. S.R.G. and Colucci v. Colucci, to support her claim for retroactive child support. The father's financial disclosures indicate substantial income beyond his reported salary, and Dr. Kaur asserts that he has the capacity to meet his child support obligations. She requests that the court consider the full scope of the father's income, including corporate and other sources, in determining appropriate support.

Issue: On what date should the March 4, 2024 Divorce Decree child support provisions be changed?

[81] I find that child support should be paid by Dr. Hura as of March 2025. The Amended Answer claimed child support, which was an effective notice of the resurrection of the claim for child support. There is no evidence before the Court that the Mediated Settlement Agreement and Divorce Decree provided for no child support and for Dr. Hura to pay for the children's travel expenses, which was based on his claim of nil income.

Issue: What is Dr. Hura's income for child support purposes? Should income be imputed to Dr. Hura?

[82] I find that Dr. Hura's income must include all reported income and a gross-up of the year's retained earnings. For 2024, the Applicant Father's income for support purposes was $178,142, calculated as follows: $120,000.00 of employment income, $57,133.00 of retained earnings, $54 of investment income, and $955 of other taxable income.

Father's Position on Breach of the Texas Order

[83] Dr. Hura asserts that Dr. Kaur has breached the Mediated Settlement Agreement and the Divorce Decree, which the Ontario Court has recognize, is enforceable as an Ontario Court order.

[84] The breaches include:

(1) Not providing her address in 2023

(2) Not providing the father's contact information on school forms and listing the maternal grandmother instead

(3) Interfering with daily phone calls

(4) Not providing daily phone calls at times

(5) Not engaging in any consultation about the school when a good-faith consultation was required

(6) Failure to provide health cards

(7) Interfering with August 2024 and August 2025 parenting time

[85] Dr. Hura seeks an order that the Dr. Kaur be found to have breached the Order and that she pay costs to him. The amount was not specified in his relief.

Mother's Position on Breach of the Texas Order

[86] Dr. Kaur opposes a finding that she has breached the Order and that she pay costs. She asserts that Dr. Hura has breached the order himself, including failing to exercise parenting time in July 2023. Dr. Kaur also asks me to consider that Dr. Hura also breached the Order when he did not exercise all of his available parenting time during the summer of 2023. He cited financial concerns after his relocation to Ontario from India. He has just started a new job. At that time, he understood the girls resided in British Columbia. A parent's choice not to exercise all of the summer vacation parenting time is not the same as interfering with or denying parenting time, nor do I consider it a breach worthy of cost sanctions.

Issue: Has Dr. Kaur breached the Final Order? If so, what consequences should there be?

[87] I find that Dr. Kaur has breached the Final Order.

[88] The Mediated Settlement Agreement and the Divorce Decree grant both parents to be joint managing conservators. The descriptions of responsibilities and entitlements are similar to those in the Ontario terms of joint decision-makers. Dr. Kaur breached the duty imposed upon joint decision-makers. Also, she has breached specific terms of the Divorce Decree by not providing the father's contact information on school forms and listing the maternal grandmother instead, interfering and not providing daily phone calls at times, not engaging in any consultation about the school when a good-faith consultation was required, failure to provide health cards, etc. She also interfered with Dr. Hura's parenting time in August 2024 and August 2025 by claiming to be on vacation when she was not and when she was not entitled to the vacation time with the children.

[89] If a person fails to obey an order in a case or a related case, the court may deal with the failure by making any order that it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter, including, an order for costs under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, which is the relief sought by Dr. Hura. See Clark v. Clark, 2014 ONCA 175, 2014 CarswellOnt 2477 (Ont. C.A.).

[90] The three-step process for assessing non-compliance within the context of R. 1(8), as articulated by Spence J. in Ferguson v. Charlton, is still applicable under the amended version of the rule:

(1) First, the court must ask whether there a triggering event that would allow it to consider the wording of either subrule 1(8) ... That triggering event would be non-compliance with a court order "in the case or a related case" ...

(2) Second, if the triggering event exists, the court should then ask whether it is appropriate to exercise its discretion in favour of the non-complying party by not sanctioning that party under subrule 1(8) ... [T]his discretion will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. In my view, the court's decision whether or not to exercise its discretion in favour of a non-complying party, ought to take into account all relevant history in the course of the litigation and, more specifically, the conduct of the non-complying party.

(3) Third, in the event that the court determines that it will not exercise its discretion in favour of the non-complying party, it is then left with a very broad discretion as to the appropriate remedy pursuant to the provision ... of ... subrule 1(8) ... [Emphasis added.]

[91] I find that Dr. Kaur should pay Dr. Hura $5,000 in costs with respect to the breaches, pursuant to Rule 1(8). Dr. Kaur has not followed the terms or spirit of the Mediated Settlement Agreement and Divorce Decree.

Order

[92] The Final Decree of Divorce issued by Justice Laura Salinas of the District Court of Bexar County, Texas, on March 4, 2024 ("Texas Order"), and recognized as an extra-provincial order under s.41 on September 19, 2024, by Justice Cheung, shall be varied pursuant to s.42 to include the following language:

(1) The Respondent Neeraj Kaur shall not relocate with the Children, namely Ikleen Hora born […], 2012, and Harleen Kaur Hura, born […], 2019, outside the boundaries of the Region of Peel, Province of Ontario, in the absence of the Applicant Kanwaljeet Singh Hura's written consent, or further court order.

(2) The provisions of the Texas Order that permit the Respondent Neeraj Kaur to designate the primary residence of the Children anywhere in Canada or the USA without the Applicant Kanwaljeet Singh Hura's consent shall be of no force and effect.

[93] The Applicant Kanwaljeet Singh Hura's shall pay child support for the children Ikleen Hura, born […], 2012 and Harleen Kaur Hura, born […], 2019 to the Respondent Neeraj Kaur in the amount of $2,415 per month as of October 1, 2025 and on the first day of each month thereafter based on the Child Support Guidelines and his income for support purposes was $178,142, calculated as follows: $120,000.00 of employment income; $57,133.00 of 2024 retained earnings; $54 of investment income; and $955 of other taxable income.

[94] The Applicant Kanwaljeet Singh Hura's shall pay child support arrears for the children Ikleen Hura, born […], 2012 and Harleen Kaur Hura, born […], 2019 to the Respondent Neeraj Kaur in the amount of $10,740.00 as of September 30, 2025 at the rate of $2,000 per month.

[95] The Respondent Neeraj Kaur has been found to have breached the Final Decree of Divorce issued by Justice Laura Salinas of the District Court of Bexar County, Texas, on March 4, 2024 ("Texas Order"), and recognized as an extra-provincial order under s.41 on September 19, 2024, by Justice Cheung.

[96] The Respondent Neeraj Kaur shall pay costs to the Applicant Kanwaljeet Singh Hura pursuant to Rule 1(8) in the amount of $5,000, at the rate of $1,000 per month commencing November 1, 2025.

Costs Submissions

a. Any party seeking costs may make written submissions to the court, to be submitted no later than 14 days from today with a maximum length of two pages – double spaced, 12 point font, normal margins. Bill of costs and Offer to Settle may be attached to the costs submission without counting to the page limits.

b. Responding submissions may be submitted no later than 14 days after being served with the costs submissions and are subject to the same parameters.

c. No reply submissions permitted.

d. Parties are to file electronically.

CA to send submissions to chambers upon expiry of the two deadlines.

Released: October 7, 2025

Signed: Justice Joanne Beasley