CITATION: Ahmad v. Ahmed, 2017 ONSC 4952
COURT FILE NO.: FS-15-84377-00
DATE: 2017 08 24
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
NADEM AHMAD
Self-Represented
Applicant
- and -
SAMINA AHMED
Self-Represented
Respondent
HEARD: June 19, 20, 21, 22, & 23, 2017
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Justice Thomas A. Bielby
Introduction
[1] The parties are husband and wife, having married in Pakistan on August 20, 2000. They are the parents of three children, a daughter Rida, born July 24, 2001, a son Omar, born January 25, 2003, and a son Saif, born December 20, 2004.
[2] The parties represented themselves at trial.
[3] The applicant husband commenced these proceedings on September 15, 2015. The issues before the court are:
a. divorce,
b. the correct date of separation,
c. custody and access,
d. child and spousal support, including a request that a higher income be imputed to the applicant, and
e. the equalization of net family properties, which includes an issue surrounding the possession of a considerable amount of jewelry.
Background
[4] The applicant has a university degree as a mechanical engineer. He also has undertaken some graduate studies.
[5] The applicant joined the Pakistani army where he rose to the rank of major. He retired from the army in 2010 after a seven year posting in the Karachi district of Pakistan.
[6] For those seven years, or a good part of them, the respondent was employed as a middle school teacher. She is also university educated with a Masters in Communication. Prior to that the respondent was a homemaker taking care of their young children.
[7] In 2010, the parties commenced the process of immigrating to Canada. The applicant submits that it was the respondent who wished to immigrate. The applicant alleges that the respondent's ultimate goal was to reside in the United States of America (USA) where she has family. The respondent submits the only family she has in the USA is her brother and that it was a mutual decision to move to Canada, to seek a better life and brighter future, especially for their children.
[8] The family arrived in Canada on August 18, 2013. The applicant testified that on their arrival he had in his possession $32,000, a sum which represented his net worth. The applicant further testified that he had no remaining assets left in Pakistan.
[9] After a few days in Canada the applicant left the country, leaving the respondent and children behind. He testified that he gave the respondent $14,000 before he left Canada, a fact denied by the respondent.
[10] The respondent testified that with the financial assistance of her brother and father, she brought approximately $10,000 to Canada to provide herself with some financial buffer until she and the family got settled.
[11] When the parties were married, as is the apparent custom in Pakistan, the parties received wedding gifts of gold jewelry. The applicant testified that he supplemented this over the years by purchasing more jewelry for investment purposes. The applicant submits that the respondent possesses the jewelry, however that she refuses to account for it.
[12] The respondent denies being in possession of the jewelry submitting that in 2010 the applicant took possession of the jewelry to get it appraised because when immigrating to Canada, assets and their values must be disclosed. The respondent testified that the jewelry has been out of her possession since then.
[13] While both parties seek the return of a share of the jewelry or compensation in lieu thereof, neither declared the return of the jewelry as an item of relief sought in their pleadings, although the respondent does seek an equalization of their net family properties.
[14] A further point at issue between the parties is whether or not the applicant, at the time of separation, owned two properties in Pakistan, described as a plot and an apartment.
Date of Separation
[15] The applicant submits that he separated from the respondent on August 18, 2013, at or about the time the family immigrated to Canada. When they arrived in Canada the respondent and the children went to live with her cousin. The applicant resided elsewhere. The applicant only remained in Canada for a few days and then travelled to the USA to visit his sister after which he travelled to Turkey and ultimately back to Pakistan where he obtained employment with the Pakistani Space Agency.
[16] The applicant remained in Pakistan until July 6, 2015 when he returned to Canada shortly before his permanent residence status would have been revoked.
[17] Upon his return, or shortly before, the respondent wife submits that the applicant conveyed to her his wish to live with the family again and encouraged the respondent to acquire larger accommodations. However, after arriving in Canada, he refused to co-sign a lease and it is the evidence of the respondent that it was at that point she believed the parties separated (July 6, 2015).
[18] I find that August 18, 2013, is the date of separation. The parties were living separate and apart thereafter with no reasonable prospect that they would resume cohabitation. The evidence makes it very clear that the applicant had no interest in remaining with the family and made it clear he did not want to communicate directly with the respondent. He would only communicate with the children.
[19] The applicant, travelling with his sister, returned in July, 2014, for a visit and spent a total of three hours with the children. During this visit, he refused to speak to the respondent and when the respondent attempted to speak to him, he said to her, "I don't want to see your face."
[20] If the applicant was seriously considering reconciliation in July, 2015, the thought soon passed without any real effort.
[21] After the applicant left Canada in August, 2013, he paid support to the respondent in the amount of $215 per month. When he returned to Canada in July 2015, the payments stopped and the applicant did not assist the family financially again until he was ordered to do so, in April 2016.
Divorce
[22] Both parties seek a divorce and regardless of the date of separation, they have been separated for at least one year. The particulars of their marriage was confirmed by the filing of a certified translation of their marriage certificate (Exhibit 14) and the proper central divorce registry clearance certificate has been filed (Exhibit 13).
[23] A divorce order will issue.
Custody and Access
[24] When the applicant left Canada in 2013, he left the children in the care of his wife, the respondent. As noted above, except for a few hours on July 27, 2014, the children did not see their father again until July, 2015.
[25] I find that prior to and after the parties separated, the respondent was the children's primary caregiver.
[26] The applicant is content with the children continuing to live with the respondent but seeks joint custody, wanting a say in decision making regarding the children. He takes some issue as to how the respondent raises the children suggesting that she is not firm enough with them and that she is alienating him from the children.
[27] The parties do not communicate with each other. The applicant refuses to do so. Any messages are sent through the children.
[28] I award sole custody of the children to the respondent. By all accounts the children are flourishing under her care. The applicant did not concern himself with the decisions the respondent made from the summer of 2013 to the summer of 2015. He left the respondent and the children to fend for themselves in a new country and culture.
[29] Further, the applicant's refusal to communicate directing with the respondent is further evidence that joint custody is not feasible.
[30] I will order the respondent to sign the necessary authorizations to allow the applicant access to all school and medical information.
[31] Returning now to 2013, after a short stay with her cousin, the respondent obtained employment and moved, along with the children to a basement apartment. They remained in that apartment until the summer of 2015 when the respondent, without the assistance of the applicant, leased a townhouse where she and the children continue to reside.
[32] The applicant, by an interim order dated April 16, 2016, is entitled to two hours of access on the weekend, either Saturday or Sunday. This aspect of the order was made with the consent of both parties. The applicant testified at trial that he wants a greater amount of time with the children but concedes that he does not have accommodations favourable to exercising overnight access.
[33] The applicant further testified that it is only the middle child, Omar, whom he sees on a regular basis, that is to say, for two hours each weekend. He has only exercised access to the other two children six or so times, being told they had conflicting activities or appointments or simply did not want to meet him.
[34] The respondent testified that, despite her best efforts, the other two children do not wish to visit with their father on a regular basis. They do not enjoy their time with their father and she submits that the children have told her of behaviours of the applicant that upset them. For example, it is alleged he uses his mobile phone when he is driving. It is suggested he drives too fast.
[35] The applicant is of the opinion that the respondent is alienating the children from him and she is not doing enough to make all the children exercise access with him. He testified, "Children in Pakistan listen to their parents."
[36] The respondent testified that when the eldest child Rida told her father she wanted to be a social worker, the applicant criticized her for her choice and said she should look to a professional career such as engineering. This upset Rida. The applicant, it is said, also criticizes Rida about her weight. These facts were not disputed by the applicant.
[37] In regards to the youngest child, Saif, the applicant believes he spends too much time playing video games and blames the respondent for allowing it. Saif would rather play such games instead of visiting his father. The applicant believes Saif has vision problems from watching the television screen too much.
[38] The respondent, while not opposed to greater access, is concerned about how the children will react. The respondent wants access to be flexible as she works and only has Saturdays to take the children to their activities and appointments.
[39] The court's concern is the best interests of the children. It is in their best interests to have a healthy relationship with both parents. However, I do not believe the applicant is fully aware of the impact his decision to return to Pakistan in July, 2013, had on the children. At their ages, two years is a lifetime.
[40] The applicant left his family in Canada where they had little family and no friends. For those two years their lives functioned without the presence or influence of their father.
[41] I have no concerns for the children's' safety while in the care of the applicant. I believe the respondent's concern in that regard is likely exaggerated. For example, she produced a picture stored on her phone of the applicant in a car on his phone and in the background there was another vehicle. The applicant's hands were not on the steering wheel. Presumably the picture was taken by one of the children.
[42] After viewing the picture I am satisfied that the applicant's car was not moving and was likely parked.
[43] In regards to the respondent's request that access be flexible, such flexibility can be used and/or have the effect of frustrating access. Flexibility in regards to access is only a good thing when both parties are capable of communicating and accommodating the reasonable requests of each other.
[44] In this matter the parties are not communicating with one another let alone co-operating. In my opinion access should be for fixed periods of time. Activities and appointments are not to be booked during those hours unless done on the consent of both parents and any access lost is to be made up at another time.
[45] It is the responsibility of the respondent to use reasonable efforts to see that the children visit with their father. The children are not to be left with the choice of whether or not they will visit with their father. A parent's role is to require the children participate in matters which are in their best interests, including activities which, if the children are left to decide, the children would choose not to participate.
[46] I say that with one caveat. Rida is soon to be 16 years of age and should be entitled to significant input as to whether or not she should visit with her father.
[47] I also believe both parties and the children, in an effort to improve the dynamics of the family, albeit a separated one, should consider counselling to allow all of them to express their views and preferences in an effort to ensure the three children all have a healthy relationship with both parents.
[48] A word of caution to the applicant. I believe he must be more sensitive to the needs of the children and accept them for who they are and not who he wants them to be. They are to be nurtured and supported. Everything is not as black and white, right and wrong, as they appear to be to the applicant.
[49] Since the respondent works full time, in considering access I also need to take into account that weekends with the children are important to her.
[50] After considering all the circumstances and the submissions of the parties I will order access to occur alternate Saturdays for a period of six hours, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the access shall be from 12:00 noon until 6:00 pm that day.
[51] The applicant is also to have access on a weekday evening, from 5:00 pm to 7:30 pm and unless the parties agree otherwise the access will occur on Wednesdays.
[52] If access is cancelled by the respondent it is to be made up within 14 days from the date access was to occur.
[53] In regards to access cancelled by the applicant, I will not require it to be made up.
[54] As noted, the respondent is to sign the necessary authorizations to allow the applicant to obtain information from the children's care givers and teachers.
[55] While the applicant seeks access on holidays and for vacation he did not provide the court with any particulars or specific requests. I believe the applicant should see the children during those times and will leave it to the parties to arrange.
[56] Finally, in regards to the children, while the parties are now divorced, they will continue in a relationship with each other as long as any of the children remain dependent. They need to find a way to communicate with each other. I would suggest they utilize email to convey messages. This will create a written record of the parties' communications which if they ever return to court can be submitted into evidence.
Credibility
[57] With respect to the issues of support and equalization, credibility becomes a more significant issue.
[58] The applicant does not include as income, his Pakistani army pension. He seems to acknowledge its existence but testified to the effect that he cannot access it from Canada. The pension may be deposited into his Pakistani bank account however the applicant testified that he had no way to contact the appropriate office to make the necessary inquiries. He testified that he has no contact information and no way to get the pension paid to him in Canada. He testified that his calls are blocked and emails are not accepted. Writing for information gets no response.
[59] Given that it is his evidence that he has very little income it seems to me he would pursue his pension with some earnest.
[60] The applicant provided this testimony on the first day of this trial and the respondent that evening conducted an internet search with respect to pensions and the Pakistani army. The next morning, when cross-examining the applicant, the respondent showed the applicant a printout from the Pakistani Army Military Accounts Office Pension site which provided all the contact information necessary to make inquiries. The information package was made Exhibit 4.
[61] It would seem that the information was readily available and easily accessible.
[62] On the issue of the pension, I find the applicant was attempting to mislead the court. He was attempting to exclude his pension income for support purposes.
[63] The applicant also testified that he could not access his Pakistani bank accounts from Canada. He testified that cannot get a response from the bank despite his request for information. He cannot confirm pension deposits and online banking is not an option. He testified that banking practices in Pakistan are not the same as in Canada.
[64] The applicant has not produced any Pakistani bank statements and apart from a single letter has made no real attempt to acquire such statements.
[65] Again, during her cross-examination of the applicant, the respondent presented the applicant with a package of information in regards to the Pakistani bank (Exhibit 5) that the applicant uses, which she obtained via the internet. The package included contact information and advertised online banking.
[66] Exhibit 10, Tab O, of the respondent's exhibit book is the respondent's Pakistani bank statement obtained by her bank for, September, 2016. The statement was emailed to her after she had a telephone conversation with the bank manager. It is apparent that the respondent, in contrast to the testimony of the applicant, could, with minimal effort, obtain Pakistani bank information.
[67] In my opinion the applicant is again attempting to mislead the court and has failed to make proper disclosure. In contrast to this age of instant digital information, the applicant seems to rely on some great divide between Canada and Pakistan which prohibits the transfer of information and assets.
[68] I found the respondent to be completely credible and in no substantial way failed to disclose. She, when cross-examined, was not damaged by any significant contradictions and answered the questions put to her in a prompt and reasonable way.
[69] For those reasons, where there are conflicts in the testimony between the parties I accept the testimony of the respondent over that of the applicant.
Child and Spousal Support
[70] The applicant recognizes his obligation to pay child support. Pursuant to the April, 2016, interim order the applicant, based on an income of $22,000, was ordered to pay child support of $462 per month on an interim and without prejudice basis.
[71] There are no arrears.
[72] The applicant seeks a reduction of child support submitting his income is less than $22,000. He believes that he should pay child support of $350/month and no spousal support.
[73] The respondent submits the applicant's income ought to be imputed at a higher figure for the purposes of both child support and spousal support.
[74] The applicant agreed that if his income was significantly higher, he would recognize an obligation to pay spousal support but given his income, no spousal support should be ordered.
Applicant's Financial Position
[75] As noted previously, the applicant is a mechanical engineer. He also holds a M.B.A. and a Masters in Information Technology. The applicant completed what he called a bridging program in human resources at Sheridan College and is considering further studies.
[76] In his financial statement, sworn April 25, 2017, the applicant discloses an income of $2,621 per month, excluding his pension. During his testimony however the applicant said that this is not the amount he lives on as he has to deduct from that amount his business expenses such as fuel for his car.
[77] The applicant's financial statement discloses an expense for gasoline of $520 per month. He also claimed vehicle maintenance expenses of $828 per month.
[78] With respect to his pension, the applicant testified that it may amount to 50,000 rupees per month, the equivalent of $800.
[79] In February, 2016, the applicant was, for five months, employed as a security guard, earning $11.25/hour.
[80] He also worked as an Uber driver but lost that job in February, 2017, because of complaints received from passengers (Exhibit 3). He continues driving for, what I believe is called, Uber Eat, making deliveries of food.
[81] From February to May, 2017 the applicant got a temporary job as a file clerk. He expects further work through the "temp" agency.
[82] The applicant's notice of assessment for 2016, discloses an income of only $6,916.
[83] The applicant testified that he had borrowed $10,000 from his sister to help meet expenses and to purchase a 2010 Honda motor vehicle.
[84] The applicant has $3,500 in his TD Bank account. In Pakistan he ultimately testified that he may have the equivalent of $4,000 in an account.
[85] The applicant also testified that if he becomes a Canadian citizen he will lose his pension. He did not testify as to whether or not he will apply for citizenship. Before I would consider the possibility of the termination of his pension because of a change of citizenship I would want corroborating evidence authored by someone in authority at the Pakistani Army Pension Administration office.
[86] On the evidence I have heard I believe this to be a further attempt to mislead the court in its considerations of child and spousal support.
[87] The applicant submits that the respondent gets financial assistance from her brother and her father.
Respondent's Financial Position
[88] The respondent, as noted, has a Masters in Communications and was a teacher in Pakistan. In September, 2013, after her arrival in Canada the respondent took a job at Tim Horton's. Her next job was at the Future Shop in customer service.
[89] She also worked part-time as a tutor, work she obtained through the internet.
[90] Thereafter she got part-time work at a daycare centre which in November, 2015, turned into full-time employment. She started at $11.25/hour and is now earning $13.00/hour, and working 40 hours per week. She has no benefit plan through her employment.
[91] Exhibit 11, Tab 30, contains the respondent's current financial statement, sworn on, June 4, 2017. Therein she discloses monthly income of $3,540 including income, child tax benefits and tax rebates.
[92] This figure does not include the child support presently being paid.
[93] The respondent's income for 2016 was $34,200. Her expenses total $5,412 per month but there is no suggestion that difference is being covered by credit or loan. No monthly debt payments are noted and she testified that she had no credit card debt.
[94] As of the date of the financial statement the respondent had $3,600 in the bank. She testified that she owes a total of $8,000 to her brother.
Findings – Spousal Support
[95] On the evidence before me the respondent has not made out a case for spousal support and the claim for spousal support will be dismissed. Her income likely matches or exceeds that of the applicant.
Findings – Child Support
[96] The applicant's income for interim support purposes was fixed at $22,000, which is less than minimum wage, assuming full-time work. I am certainly prepared to impute a higher income to the applicant, moving forward. His income for support purposes will include the amount representing his army pension which I find is at least $800 per month, which brings the applicant's total income up to $31,600.
[97] With respect to child support, the applicant will be ordered to pay to the respondent, commencing September 1, 2017, for three children the sum of $622 per month on an income of $31,600 (Exhibit 17). This amount is in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines for the Province of Ontario.
[98] As long as the applicant is required to pay child support he will be obliged to provide to the respondent his income tax returns and notices of assessment, on an annual basis, commencing June 1, 2018.
Net Family Property
Real Property in Pakistan
[99] The applicant denies that he owned or owns any real property in Pakistan whereas the respondent testified that the applicant owns two properties, one referenced as the plot and the other as the apartment.
[100] The applicant testified that to come to Canada he liquidated all his assets and the $32,000 he brought with him represents his net worth. When living in Pakistan he had investments through a military account office and the applicant testified that the value of these accounts was included in the $32,000.
[101] He went on to say any monies received from his aunt's estate are also included in the $32,000.
[102] The respondent testified about discussions she had with the applicant about purchasing the plot and apartment. The applicant told her he believed it would be a good investment.
[103] The respondent testified that the plot was property awaiting development.
[104] The respondent testified that the applicant would, from time to time, drive her and the children to the properties to inspect them. The respondent testified that the applicant was very proud of his acquisition of these properties.
[105] Further, the respondent's father, who was called as a witness, testified to a period in time when he visited his daughter and the applicant and was taken to look at the properties. The applicant was again said to be very proud of these assets.
[106] I find as a fact that on the date of separation, being the valuation day, for the purposes of equalization, that the applicant owned such properties.
[107] In reaching this conclusion I have accepted the testimony of the respondent and her father over that of the applicant. Further, I have had regard to Tab 20 of the respondent's document brief (Exhibit 11). Therein is a notarized statement in regards to the applicant's ownership of these properties. While the statement is hearsay there is no other third party evidence or official documentation related to the properties. I must consider the best evidence available to me. The statement is admitted as evidence using the principled exception rule in regards to hearsay evidence: see R. v. Khelewon, 2006 SCC 57, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 787.
[108] Certainly there is a significant element of necessity. The property is located overseas and I am advised Pakistan does not have a land registry system comparable to our own. Further, it is the obligation of the applicant to disclose his assets which he has failed to do. In my opinion this factor also goes to the necessity of admitting the document.
[109] Given that the statement is notarized, it is sufficiently reliable.
[110] The more significant problem is establishing the value to be used for equalization purposes.
[111] Exhibit 10, Tabs K and L, detail sale advertisements for comparable properties in Pakistan. The respondent obtained these documents by searching the internet. My review of these documents suggest the advertisements and the sale prices set out therein, are dated sometime in March, 2017. The values attributable to these properties therefore are not date of separation (valuation date) values. However they do represent the best evidence available to the court (see: Bradshaw v. Langley Estate, 2015 ONSC 4909, [2015] O.J. No. 4658 at para. 75 and Oskalne v. Oskalne 2016 ONSC 1676, [2016] O.J. No. 4429). The respondent has made significant efforts to find evidence as to the values of the plot and the apartment. The applicant failed to disclose these assets and the appropriate values which he is obligated to do.
[112] Further, as the values are fairly current the commencement date for prejudgment interest with respect to equalization can be adjusted and deferred on the basis that the properties have appreciated in worth since the date of separation.
[113] The sale prices set out in the advertisement are quoted in Pakistani rupees. In regards to the appropriate conversion rate to be applied my research suggests that the conversion rate used by the respondent was not the rate as of the date of separation. The acceptable conversion rate for August 18, 2013, was .010038011 (the respondent employed a conversion rate of .013).
[114] Accordingly, I have converted the value of the properties from rupees to Canadian dollars based on the correct exchange rate and have determined that the value of the "plot" is $130,494.15 and the value of the apartment is $170,646.19. These values will be used for the purpose of determining the equalization payment to be paid by the applicant to the respondent.
Cash
[115] As noted above the respondent brought cash to Canada in the amount of $10,200. This is confirmed by a review of her bank statement. There is no recorded deposit of $14,000, which is the sum the applicant alleges he gave to the respondent out of his $32,000 upon their arrival in Canada. Accordingly, the full amount ($32,000) will be attributed to the applicant.
Jewelry
[116] As I have ruled earlier that I prefer the evidence of the respondent over that of the applicant, I find that the jewelry in dispute is or was in the possession of the applicant and will include it as his property for equalization purposes.
[117] There has been no formal appraisal of the jewelry presented in evidence.
[118] Prior to immigrating to Canada the parties completed a Canada Border Services Casual Goods Accounting Document (Exhibit 2) which is dated, May 8, 2013. A value of $99,500 was attributed to the jewelry. It was listed under, "goods to follow".
[119] The applicant testified that he had the jewelry valued by a Pakistani jeweller and the values used on the CBSA document are the appraiser's values. These values are not disputed by either party. In fact the applicant testified that the value attributed to the jewelry may be too low.
[120] The respondent testified that none of the jewelry was purchased as an investment. It was all gifts.
[121] For equalization purposes I find that the jewelry was gifted to both of the parties. I will deem the jewelry to be in the possession of the applicant and the value established for immigration purposes shall be attributed to the applicant, thereby increasing his net family property value.
Equalization
[122] For equalization purposes, I have taken into account the applicant's lands in Pakistan, the monies the applicant and the respondent brought into Canada with them, and, as noted above, the jewelry.
[123] While it is acknowledged that the applicant has a Pakistani pension, a valuation has not been sought or completed as to its valuation date value (date of separation value). Further, the respondent, in her net family property statement (Exhibit 9, Tab 41) has omitted any reference to the pension. Therefore, for equalization purposes, I have omitted any reference to it.
[124] In regards to a Provident Fund allegedly owned by the applicant on the date of marriage and date of separation, I have received no evidence. I will therefore not include any of it for equalization purposes.
[125] There is no evidence of any other assets or debts, in regards to either party, to be accounted for in determining their net family property values.
[126] A net family property calculation is included as schedule A to this judgment. The applicant owes an equalization payment to the respondent in the amount of $211,220.17.
FINAL ORDER
The parties, having married each other in Pakistan on August 20, 2000, are hereby divorced. This order will become final 31 days after the release of this judgment.
The date of separation is declared to be August 18, 2013.
The respondent is granted sole custody of the children Rida Nadeem Ahmed, born July 24, 2001, Omar Farooq Ahmed, born January 25, 2003 and Sif Ahmed, born December 20, 2004.
The applicant shall have access to the said children on alternate Saturdays, from 12:00 noon, till 6:00 pm, commencing Saturday, September 9, 2017, unless the parties agree otherwise.
The applicant shall have access to the children, each Wednesday evening from 5:00 pm to 7:30 pm or as the parties agree otherwise, commencing, September 6, 2017.
The applicant shall have other reasonable access on reasonable notice as agreed to by the parties.
Any access cancelled by the respondent is to be made up within 14 days of the date upon which the aborted access was to take place.
The respondent shall execute the necessary authorizations, prepared by the applicant, to allow the applicant to make reasonable inquiries and obtain information and copies of documents which are released to parents from the children's health care providers and to their school and teachers.
The respondent is to provide the applicant with photocopies of the children's health cards and birth certificates.
Pre-judgment interest on this amount is to run from April 1, 2017.
Commencing September 1, 2017, the applicant shall pay to the respondent child support of $622 per month based on a yearly imputed income of $31,600.
Support deduction order to issue.
Commencing June 1, 2018, and for as long as the applicant is required to pay child support, the applicant shall provide to the respondent his income tax return and notice of assessment for the previous tax year.
The respondent's claim for spousal support is dismissed.
For equalization purposes, the applicant shall pay to the respondent the sum of $211,220.17.
Pre–judgment interest on equalization debt is to run from April 1, 2017.
As the parties represented themselves there will be no order for costs.
Bielby J.
Released: August 24, 2017
Schedule A
NET FAMILY PROPERTY STATEMENT
| ITEM | APPLICANT | RESPONDENT |
|---|---|---|
| ASSETS: | ||
| Cash | $ 32,000.00 | $10,200.00 |
| Plot of Land, Istanbul | 130,494.15 | |
| Apartment, Karachi | 170,646.19 | |
| Jewelry | 99,500.00 | |
| TOTAL ASSETS: | $432,640.34 | $10,200.00 |
| DEBTS AND LIABILITIES | N/A | |
| DATE OF MARRIAGE DEDUCTION | N/A | |
| NET FAMILY PROPERTY: | $432,640.34 | $10,200.00 |
| EQUALIZATION PAYMENT FROM APPLICANT TO RESPONDENT | $211,220.17 |
CITATION: Ahmad v. Ahmed, 2017 ONSC 4952
COURT FILE NO.: FS-15-84377-00
DATE: 2017 08 24
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
NADEM AHMAD
Applicant
- and –
SAMINA AHMED
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Bielby J.
Released: August 24, 2017