Rajni Tekriwal

The parties separated after a 25-year traditional marriage.

The central issue at trial was the equalization of net family properties, specifically the respondent's claim to exclude $894,000 as funds traceable to gifts from his late father.

The court rejected the exclusion claim, finding the respondent concocted the gift letters and failed to trace the funds.

The court also determined the parties' incomes for support purposes, declining to impute the applicant's income to her previous banking salary due to health and educational limitations.

The respondent's claim for spousal support was dismissed, and child support obligations were determined for the adult children.

Following an urgent motion where the applicant father successfully obtained an order for the return of the parties' child from India, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that the respondent mother's unilateral retention of the child in India was calculated and unreasonable, warranting sanction.

The applicant was awarded costs of $17,000 on a near full indemnity basis.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking an order that Ontario has jurisdiction over the parties' child and for the child's return from India.

The respondent mother had travelled to India with the child for a scheduled visit but refused to return to Ontario.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in Ontario under s. 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act and declined to yield jurisdiction to the courts in India.

The court ordered the respondent to return the child to Ontario within 30 days and made interim parenting and asset preservation orders.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking an order that Ontario has jurisdiction over the parties' child and for the child's return from India.

The respondent mother, who travelled to India with the child for a vacation and did not return, sought an adjournment.

The court granted the adjournment but made an interim, without prejudice finding that the child is habitually resident in Ontario and that the court has jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act, citing compelling documentary evidence of the family's life in Ontario.