Parminder Hundal

The applicant brought a motion to split the divorce claim from the other issues in the case pursuant to Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules.

The respondent opposed, arguing that a divorce would prejudice her pending claims in India, and relied on an affidavit from an Indian lawyer as expert evidence of foreign law.

The court found the expert evidence inadmissible because the lawyer was not sufficiently qualified and the opinion lacked reliability.

Finding no disadvantage to either spouse, the court granted the motion to split the divorce and awarded costs to the applicant.

The applicant moved under Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules to split his request for a divorce from the other issues in the case.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that a Canadian divorce would prejudice her ability to pursue property claims against the applicant in India.

The respondent relied on an unsworn letter from an Indian lawyer as expert evidence of foreign law.

The court found the letter inadmissible as expert evidence due to a lack of qualifications and explanation.

However, to deal with the case justly, the court adjourned the motion to allow both parties to obtain and present admissible expert evidence regarding Indian law.

The applicant husband brought a motion for the return of the parties' child from British Columbia to Ontario, arguing that Ontario was the child's habitual residence.

The respondent wife brought a cross-motion to stay the proceedings or transfer them to British Columbia, where she had commenced a family law proceeding under provincial legislation.

The court found that the husband's application under the Divorce Act took precedence and that the child was habitually resident in Ontario, as the wife had relocated without the husband's consent.

The court ordered the wife to return the child to Ontario within 30 days.