COURT FILE NO.: FC-17-2220
DATE: 20210121
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ANNE MARIE CECILE CLAIRE MURRAY
Applicant
– and –
SUHAIL MASOOD CHOUDHARY
Respondent
Thomas Hunter, for the Applicant
Self-represented
HEARD: January 18, 19, 2021
REASONS FOR decision
Audet J.
[1] This matter was set to proceed to trial beginning on January 18, 2021, for three weeks. As permitted by the trial management judge, the applicant, Ms. Murray, brought a motion on the first day of trial in which she sought the following relief[^1]:
That the respondent’s Answer be struck;
In the alternative;
a. That the respondent shall not be permitted to file and rely, at the trial, on the documents which were ordered to be produced by December 30, 2019 at the Trial Management Conference held on November 1, 2019;
b. That the respondent shall be required to pay costs thrown away on a full recovery basis with respect to this motion;
c. That the respondent’s level of participation in this trial to be limited to the cross-examination of witnesses;
d. That the respondent shall be required to satisfy the outstanding cost orders in the amount of (roughly) $28,000.00 inclusive of interest, which remain outstanding since April 3, 2018 and February 24, 2020, before he is permitted to participate in the trial;
e. That the respondent be prevented from proceeding with the trial unless he posts security for costs in the amount of $100,000.00, to be paid forthwith;
f. Costs on a full indemnity basis.
[2] On January 19, 2021, at the conclusion of the motion hearing, I struck Mr. Choudhary’s Answer and limited his ability to participate in the trial to cross-examination of witnesses and making closing submissions. I also ordered that Mr. Choudhary’s limited participation rights could only be exercised if he satisfied all outstanding cost awards made in the course of this proceeding ($27,000) by 9 a.m. on January 25, 2021, the date at which the trial is now set to continue. I indicated to the parties that my written reasons in support this order would follow.
Background and History of Proceedings
[3] The parties were married on May 2, 2007 and separated on October 9, 2017. They do not have children together.
[4] On the day of their marriage, the parties entered into a pre-nuptial contract (“the prenuptial agreement”) which stipulated that, upon marriage breakdown, they would be separate as to property and no spousal support would be paid.
[5] During the years that preceded the parties’ separation, the couple resided in the property located at 43 Bramblewood Crescent, in Kanata. Title to that property was in Ms. Murray’s name alone (hereinafter “the Bramblewood property”). Mr. Choudhary left Canada in September 2017 to go to Germany with the stated intention of pursuing post-secondary education. It is while Mr. Choudhary was living abroad that the parties separated.
[6] On October 24, 2017, Ms. Murray started an application seeking a simple divorce. However, she chose not to serve her application on Mr. Choudhary at that time.
[7] At some point in November 2017, Mr. Choudhary returned from Germany. On his return to Ottawa, Ms. Murray refused him access to the home. Mr. Choudhary nonetheless gained access to the home on December 2, 2017, when Ms. Murray was out of the home, and he changed the locks. For reasons which need not be described here, Ms. Murray temporarily moved out of her home.
[8] On December 21, 2017, Ms. Murray sought leave to bring an urgent motion for an order granting her exclusive possession of the Bramblewood property and a restraining order against Mr. Choudhary. The request for an urgent motion was denied, but the parties were allowed to proceed to a case conference on an expedited basis.
February 12, 2018 Case Conference before Audet J.
[9] The matter proceeded to a case conference before me on February 12, 2018. At that time, I allowed Ms. Murray to amend her application, permitted a motion for temporary relief to be heard before March 31, 2018, and made the following additional orders:
The applicant’s motion materials shall be served and filed on or before February 27, 2018. The respondent’s motion materials (including his cross-motion, if any) shall be served and filed on or before March 13, 2018. Any Reply shall be served and filed 2 days before the Motion hearing.
The motion hearing can proceed even though the respondent’s Answer has not been served or filed.
As part of their motion materials, both parties shall serve and file duly completed and sworn Financial Statements, with all relevant attachments.
Ms. Murray’s Amended Application dated March 6, 2018
[10] On March 6, 2018, Ms. Murray served and filed her amended application in which she sought a declaration that the pre-nuptial agreement was binding on the parties. Ms. Murray also sought exclusive procession of the Bramblewood property, occupational rent, the reimbursement of monies allegedly lent by her to Mr. Choudhary, damages for physical and emotional abuse and the inflicting of mental suffering, as well as a restraining order.
[11] On or about March 23, 2018, Mr. Choudhary sought leave to file his Answer, financial statement and motion materials without his notices of assessment. This request was denied by Master Fortier who indicated that Mr. Choudhary’s motion, in that regard, could be reconsidered when he was able to satisfy the court that he has possession of, or has taken reasonable steps to obtain, from the Canada Revenue Agency, copies of his notices of assessment.
March 31 - April 3, 2018 Motion before Corthorn J.
[12] Ms. Murray’s motion was heard on March 31, 2018, but it could not be completed on that day. In her decision dated April 20, 2018, Corthorn J. explained:
The motion was scheduled for two hours. For a number of reasons, it was not possible to complete the motion in two hours. First, delays were encountered in an effort to determine what materials, if any, the respondent had filed in response to the motion. Second, the relief sought by the applicant on the return of the motion included leave to admit an audio recording as evidence. The hearing of the motion commenced on March 31 and was completed on April 3, 2018.
[13] In her decision of April 20, Corthorn J. granted Ms. Murray exclusive possession of the Bramblewood property and an interim restraining order against Mr. Choudhary. Of particular relevance to the motion before me are the following orders made by Corthorn J.:
The respondent shall, prior to vacating the Property, take the steps necessary to return the Property to the condition in which it was on December 2, 2017 (i.e. any damage to the Property since December 2, 2017 shall be repaired); The respondent shall, no later than 1:00 p.m. on Monday, April 30, 2018, deliver to the office of the applicant’s counsel all keys for the Property in the respondent's possession and any keys the respondent knows to be in the possession of others;
The respondent shall, no later than 1:00 p.m. on Monday, April 30, 2018, deliver to the office of applicant’s counsel a certified cheque or bank draft, payable to the applicant, in the amount owing for utilities for the Property from December 2, 2017 to April 30, 2018.
Mr. Choudhary’s Answer dated March 16, 2018
[14] It is to be noted that in the context of the motion before Corthorn J., Mr. Choudhary had not yet formally filed an Answer or a financial statement, because he did not have the requisite notices of assessment. His Answer, however, dated March 16, 2018 had been served on Ms. Murray.
[15] In his Answer, Mr. Choudhary sought the equalization of the parties’ net family property, exclusive possession of the home and its contents, and spousal support, in addition to a number of other related claims (such as health and life insurance coverage). Implicit to his claim for equalization and support, Mr. Choudhary was seeking to have the pre-nuptial agreement set aside or disregarded.
May 8, 2018 Motion before Engelking J.
[16] On May 8, 2018, Engelking J. heard a motion by Ms. Murray for a declaration that the Bramblewood property was not a matrimonial home, that she was the rightful owner of Bianca, the dog, and an order requiring Mr. Choudhary to return her engagement and wedding rings to her. The court also heard a cross-motion by Mr. Choudhary for permission to reside in the Bramblewood property, an order for its sale and temporary spousal support.
[17] On September 28, 2018, Engelking J. made an order requiring Ms. Murray to pay to Mr. Choudhary temporary spousal support in the amount of $931 per month commencing on June 1, 2018. She also ordered Mr. Choudhary to return the engagement and wedding rings to Ms. Murray and declared that Bianca, the dog, was the sole property of Ms. Murray. She dismissed all other motions.
[18] Of particular relevance to the motion before me are the following conclusions and orders made by Engelking J.:
She found that Mr. Choudhary had failed to pay the outstanding utilities from December 2, 2017 to April 30, 2018 as per the order of Justice Corthorn. As a result, she ordered that Ms. Murray be credited $1,426.36 towards future ongoing spousal support until fully paid;
She found that Mr. Choudhary had taken Ms. Murray’s rings, and ordered him to return them to her. In the event that he did not do so, possession of the rings was to be attributed to him and a value of $19,000 be included on his net family property statement to account for them.
August 15, 2018 Cost Award of Corthorn J.
[19] On August 15, 2018, Corthorn J. ordered Mr. Choudhary to pay costs for the March 31 and April 8, 2018 motion as well as for the February 12, 2018 case conference before me, in the amount of $22,900, plus interest at the rate of 3% per annum.
August 19, 2019 Settlement Conference before Kershman J.
[20] On August 19, 2019, the parties attended a Settlement Conference before Kershman J. As there was no settlement, the matter was added onto the next trial list (May 2020) and a trial management conference scheduled for November 1, 2019.
[21] For the purpose of the motion before me, it is important to note the following orders which he made on consent of the parties:
Mr. Choudhary was to email a copy of his Answer dated March 16, 2018, to be placed in the continuing record as it could not be located;
The parties were required to provide a Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form as required by the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99;
Mr. Choudhary was permitted to pick up his personal property, as per the detailed list included in the order, on October 29, 2019. The Portable On Demand storage (“POD”) to be used by him was to be placed in the laneway of Ms. Murray’s property on October 28 and be removed on October 31, 2019.
November 1, 2019 Trial Management Conference before Summers J.
[22] A trial management conference was held before Justice Summers on November 1, 2019. In the Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form signed by her, she indicated that Mr. Choudhary intended to rely on audio and video recordings, emails, texts, photos and Skype conversation, which he had not yet produced. She stated that he would have until December 30, 2019 to do so, otherwise he could not rely on documents not produced by that deadline without the permission of the trial judge. It is important to note, for the purpose of this motion, that at the time of the appearance before Summers J., Mr. Choudhary was specifically asked whether he could meet this deadline and he specifically responded that he could. He never raised any technological issues which may have interfered with his ability to produce those much earlier in the process.
[23] Justice Summers also allowed Ms. Murray to bring a motion for security for costs and to strike Mr. Choudhary’s pleadings, and she allowed Mr. Choudhary to bring a contempt motion. Justice Summers directed that each party was to serve and file their motion material by December 16, 2019. Any responding material was due by January 20, 2020. These timelines were set to ensure any motions were resolved well in advance of the May 2020 trial sittings.
[24] Also important for the purpose of the motion before me are the following orders made by Summers J.:
both parties were required to serve, and file updated financial statements 45 days before the trial (to be included in the trial record);
both parties were required to serve, and file updated financial statements seven days before the trial;
both parties were required to serve no later than 30 days before the trial all documentary evidence to be relied upon by them at the trial.
February 18, 2020 Motion to Strike before MacEachern J.
[25] Ms. Murray’s motion to strike and for security for costs was heard on February 20, 2020 by MacEachern J. The motion was based primarily on Mr. Choudhary’s failure to pay any amounts towards the $22,900 cost award made by Corthon J. on August 15, 2018. Ms. Murray also submitted that Mr. Choudhary had engaged in a course of conduct that had been vexatious, wasteful, and motivated by his wish to ruin her financially and psychologically.
[26] At that time, Mr. Choudhary had still not filed his Answer in the Continuing Record, as directed by Justice Kershman in his August 22, 2019 order. In addition, while having been served with Ms. Murray’s motion materials within the timelines imposed by Summers J., he had not served or filed any motion material, except for unsworn and unsigned documents served on Friday, February 14, 2020. Both parties sought to file further affidavits over the bench, and each opposed the other doing so.
[27] Justice MacEachern noted that Mr. Choudhary had attempted to file a cross-motion for contempt on December 16. 2019, with a supporting affidavit, but this material was rejected because it had not been properly served. She noted that the court file indicated that Mr. Choudhary was advised of how he would need to rectify the situation to have his material filed, but that he did not return to do so. At the motion before her, Mr. Choudhary sought to file his contempt motion material and a new affidavit in response to Ms. Murray’s motion.
[28] MacEachern J. refused to allow him to do so. In her decision dated February 24, 2020, she very clearly stated:
The respondent’s breach of Justice Summers’ timelines is not merely technical. The applicant has not had any time to respond to the respondent’s new responding material. An adjournment to allow time to respond would prejudice the applicant. A further delay will result in additional expense and jeopardize the court’s ability to deal with these issues well in advance of trial. I declined to accept the respondent’s responding material on this basis.
[29] MacEachern J. also noted that Mr. Choudhary had not filed his Answer in the Continuing Record, as ordered to do so by Kershman J. on August 19, 2019. After questioning Mr. Choudhary, she concluded that he had tried to do so on Friday, February 14, 2020, immediately before the hearing of this motion (which proceeded on Monday, February 18), and that at that time he had tried to file an Amended Answer that he had not served, nor obtained leave to amend, rather than a copy of his March 16, 2018 Answer.
[30] After having reviewed the applicable legal principles and the facts before her, MacEachern J. concluded that Mr. Choudhary’s failure to pay any amounts towards the cost order in the intervening 18 months since the order was made constituted a willful breach of that court order and a willful and egregious conduct upon which it was appropriate to strike his pleadings. She found that, based on the evidence, Mr. Choudhary could have made some payments towards those costs but failed to do so. She further added:
His willful refusal is consistent with a pattern of conduct in this proceeding where the respondent has been unresponsive to his obligation to assist the court in fulfilling its primary objective under Rule 2. Rule 2 imposes a duty on parties to do so. The respondent has repeatedly ignored this duty, including by failing to cooperate in having orders finalized, repeatedly failing to serve and file material following the Rules, and generally acting in a manner that has increased the time and expense of these proceedings.
[31] Accordingly, she struck Mr. Choudhary’s pleadings, with the provision that they could be reinstated upon him providing proof to the court, on or before March 13, 2020, that he had paid the sum of $9,000 to Ms. Murray – a sum she found he could have paid towards costs rather than discretionary travel – by certified cheque, cash, or bank draft. Given that this payment still left $13,900, plus interest, due on the outstanding costs, she further ordered that the interim spousal support payable under the September 2018 order of Engelking J. be stayed, on an immediate basis, pending a further determination at trial as to entitlement and quantum.
[32] Finally, she ordered that the deadlines set out in the trial scheduling endorsement order of Justice Summers were to continue to run and be binding on both parties.
[33] It is not disputed that Mr. Choudhary paid the $9,000 toward outstanding costs, as ordered by MacEachern J. (I do not know the exact date that this payment was made), and that his Answer was therefore reinstated.
June 3, 2020 Cost Award of MacEachern J.
[34] On June 3, 2020, MacEachern J. ordered Mr. Choudhary to pay costs to Ms. Murray in the amount of $12,000 for the February 18, 2020 motion.
January 4, 2021 Trial Management Conference before Doyle J.
[35] As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the temporary suspension of regular court operations, the trial scheduled to proceed during the May 2020 trial sittings could not proceed. It was ultimately re-scheduled to proceed during the current sittings.
[36] Since Mr. Choudhary continued to be self-represented (he has been self-represented throughout this proceeding), a further trial management conference took place before Doyle J. on January 4, 2021. It is important to note that, up until that date, Mr. Choudhary had not provided the documents which he asserted to have in his possession before Summers J. on November 1, 2019 (and which were to be served by December 31, 2019), he had not served any documents upon which he intended to rely at trial, and he had not provided a sworn financial statement.
[37] In her endorsement from that day, Doyle J. confirmed that the parties could address the following preliminary issues with the trial judge:
Payment by the respondent of outstanding costs orders;
Motion for payment of security for costs as against the respondent;
Whether Faramarz Fallah is a witness that is relevant to the proceedings;
Whether the parties may raise the issue of the dog, Bianca, at the trial or whether Justice Engleking’s order dated May 8, 2018 dealt with the dog on a final basis; and
Whether the respondent can file any further documents.
Events of January 6 to 11, 2021
[38] Between January 6 and January 11, 2021, Mr. Choudhary served counsel for Ms. Murray a total of 465 documents, contained in several emails.
[39] It is not disputed that those documents were sent in no particular order, were not organized in any way either by date or by relevance to a particular topic. In her affidavit filed in support of this motion, Ms. Murray testified that she reviewed a representative sample of 10 emails containing approximately 100 documents, which took her 6 hours. Her testimony, which was not disputed by Mr. Choudhary, is that these documents are random emails between herself and Mr. Choudhary, pictures, and irrelevant PDF documents like entering a contest or donating an old refrigerator. These documents date back many years, some of them as old as 2010, and even included a picture from the parties’ 2007 wedding.
The Within Motion
[40] Ms. Murray’s motion seeking to strike Mr. Choudhary’s Answer and other relief was served and filed on Friday, January 15, 2021. This is because her counsel, Mr. Hunter, had received information from the court suggesting that this trial would not be reached during this trial sittings given the court’s heavy list. He was only informed at the end of the day on January 14 that the trial would begin the following Monday, on January 18. As such, he sought leave of the court to abridge the time for service of his motion.
[41] On the first day of trial, which was to begin at 10 a.m., Mr. Choudhary did not attend. Since he had always attended previous court hearings and given the number of documents filed on the eve of trial, I was concerned that he might be experiencing technical difficulties. I adjourned the motion until 1 p.m. that afternoon to allow Mr. Hunter and Trial Coordination to attempt to reach Mr. Choudhary to find out what was going on.
[42] When the hearing resumed at 1 p.m., Mr. Choudhary was in attendance. He had no excuse for his absence, and explained that sometimes he had bad days, and today was one of them.
[43] Given the seriousness and finality of the various relief sought by Ms. Murray, and the fact that Mr. Choudhary had only been served with her motion three days before (on a Friday), I adjourned the motion to the next day, at 1 p.m., to allow Mr. Choudhary an extra day within which to serve and file his responding affidavit.
[44] On February 19, Mr. Choudhary served and filed an unsigned, unsworn affidavit and financial statement. His financial statement did not contain the required income tax returns, notices of assessment and proof of current income. I had Mr. Choudhary swear his affidavit and financial statement at the outset of the motion and heard the motion.
Motion to Strike
Legal Framework
[45] The court’s power to strike a party’s pleadings is found in subrule 1(8) b) and c) of the Family Law Rules. It provides that 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 dismissing a claim or striking out any application, answer, notice of motion, motion to change, response to motion to change, financial statement, affidavit, or any other document filed by a party.
[46] This power to strike pleadings is rooted in the court’s obligation to apply the Rules in a way that promotes its primary objective of dealing with cases justly. Rule 2(3) confirms that dealing with cases justly includes ensuring that the procedure is fair to all parties, saving expense and time, dealing with the case in ways that are appropriate to its importance and complexity, and giving appropriate court resources to the case while taking account of the need to give resources to other cases.
[47] The legal principles applicable to the court’s power to strike pleadings were concisely summarized by MacEachern J. in the context of her earlier decision in this case (2020 ONSC 1183), as follows:
21 The legal principle governing the exercise of judicial discretion to strike a party’s pleadings is a three-pronged test as follows:
Is there a triggering event justifying the striking of pleadings?
Is it appropriate to strike the pleadings in the circumstances of the case?
Are there other remedies in lieu of striking pleadings that might suffice?
22 The power to strike out a party’s pleadings should be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases. In family law cases, pleadings should only be struck, and trial participation denied, in exceptional circumstances and where no other remedy would suffice.[^2]
Analysis
[48] Simply stated, during the three years of this litigation, Mr. Choudhary has made a farce of the court’s process, and has completely disregarded and ignored the vast majority of court orders made by a panoply of well-intended judicial officers who have tried along the way to stir him in the right direction. To allow this behaviour to continue would not only defeat the primary objective of the Rules, it would lead to a process that is significantly unfair to Ms. Murray.
[49] In my view, the following triggering events justify the striking of Mr. Choudhary’s pleadings:
Mr. Choudhary failed to provide even ONE properly sworn financial statement throughout the course of this proceeding, despite his clear requirement to do so in accordance with the Rules, and despite at least two court orders requiring him to do so (my order of February 12, 2018 and Summers J.’s order of November 1, 2019);
Mr. Choudhary failed to file his Answer as per my order of February 12, 2018 and again when ordered to do so for a second time by Kershman J. on August 19, 2019;
Mr. Choudhary failed to abide by the court-imposed timelines requiring him to serve and file his motion materials within a certain date, in accordance with my order of February 12, 2018, and Summers J.’s order of November 1, 2019;
Mr. Choudhary failed to pay the amount owing for utilities on the Bramblewood property as ordered by Corthorn J. on April 20, 2018;
Mr. Choudhary failed to return to Ms. Murray her engagement and wedding rings as ordered by Engelking J. on September 28, 2018;
Mr. Choudhary failed to pay in full the cost award made by Corthorn J. on August 15, 2018 and to pay any of the cost award imposed by MacEachern J. on June 3, 2020;
Despite the clear order made by Kershman J. on August 19, 2019, on consent of the parties, allowing Mr. Choudhary to retrieve his personal effects by placing a POD in Ms. Murray’s laneway on October 28 and removing it on October 31, 2019, Mr. Choudhary had his POD delivered to Ms. Murray’s laneway on September 3, 2019 (7 weeks before the court-order date);
Despite having been ordered to serve all audio and video recordings, emails, texts, photos and Skype conversation that he intended to use at trial by December 30, 2019, and despite having been ordered to provide all exhibits that he intended to use at trial no later than 30 days before trial, Mr. Choudhary only did so the week before the trial was set to commence;
[50] In addition to the above failure to abide by court orders, I find that Mr. Choudhary has engaged in the following unreasonable, vexatious and wasteful conduct, which further supports an order striking his pleadings:
Prior to the motion before MacEachern J. heard on February 18, 2020, Mr. Choudhary attempted to file an Amended Answer, that he had not served, nor obtained leave to amend, rather than a copy of his March 16, 2018 Answer as ordered by the court;
Mr. Choudhary repeatedly failed to serve and file materials following the Rules, and generally acted in a manner that has increased the time and expense of these proceedings;
For the first time in the course of this three-year litigation, Mr. Choudhary chose to serve upon Ms. Murray, one week before trial, a multitude of irrelevant documents, bundled in several wholly disorganized emails, forcing Ms. Murray to incur significant legal fees to review these emails on time for the commencement of the trial;
Despite making a claim for equalization of net family property and spousal support, Mr. Choudhary has provided no disclosure at all supporting the value of any debts or assets he may have had at the time of marriage or separation, nor has he ever provided any evidence of his past and current income;
On January 6, 2021 (12 days before trial), Mr. Choudhary sent Ms. Murray’s ex sister-in-law an email asking her to be a witness in this trial and to keep this a secret from Ms. Murray. This was only two days after the trial management conference held before Doyle J., during which the parties’ respective witness lists were reviewed and confirmed (Mr. Choudhary’s witness list did not include this person);
Mr. Choudhary failed to appear on the morning of the first day of trial, offered no valid explanation for his absence when he finally appeared in the afternoon, and offered no apology to the court and the other party for his failure to attend.
[51] Based on all the above, I find it wholly appropriate to strike Mr. Choudhary’s pleadings.
[52] The third prong of the test requires me to consider if there is any other remedy in lieu of striking pleadings that might suffice. I find that striking Mr. Choudhary’s pleadings is the only way to ensure that respect for the administration of justice is upheld. I do not find that any other order would suffice to accomplish this objective.
[53] Mr. Choudhary has been given countless opportunities to comply with the Rules and with court orders made in the context of this protracted proceeding. He has been warned on many occasions that his continued failure to abide by court orders could lead to his pleadings being struck. His pleadings have indeed been struck once by MacEachern J. Despite all the chances and warnings, he has been given, Mr. Choudhary has continued to wilfully disregard his obligation to comply with court orders.
Disposition
[54] Based on the above, I make the following order:
Mr. Choudhary’s Answer dated March 16, 2018 is hereby struck.
Mr. Choudhary’s ability to participate in this trial shall be limited to cross-examination of Ms. Murray and her witnesses and making closing submissions.
The above limited participation rights, however, can only be exercised by Mr. Choudhary if he satisfies all outstanding cost awards made in the course of this proceeding by Monday, January 25, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. this outstanding cost award total $27,000, roughly, with accrued interest. This amount is to be paid in cash, certified check, bank draft, or any other guaranteed method of payment.
This trial, which will now proceed on an uncontested basis, shall resume before me on Monday, January 25, 2021, at 10 a.m.
[55] Given the above order, Ms. Murray’s motion for security for costs and other relief, with the exception of costs, is moot. I shall deal with Ms. Murray’s request for costs, including costs thrown away, at the end of the trial.
Madam Justice Julie Audet
Released: January 21, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: FC-17-2220
DATE: 20210121
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ANNE MARIE CECILE CLAIRE MURRAY
Applicant
– and –
SUHAIL MASOOD CHOUDHARY
Respondent
REASONS FOR decision
Audet J.
Released: January 21, 2021
[^1] The order of the various relief claimed was re-arranged as some of those claims were alternative claims to the main one, being that the respondent’s pleadings be struck.
[^2] MacEachern J. relied on the well-established principles set out by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Kovachis v. Kovachis, 2013 ONCA 663, 36 R.F.L. (7th) 1; Chiaramonte v. Chiaramonte, 2013 ONCA 641, 36 R.F.L. (7th) 11; Purcaru v. Purcaru, 2010 ONCA 92, 75 R.F.L. (6th) 33; Haunert-Faga v. Faga (2005), 2005 CanLII 39324 (ON CA), 20 R.F.L. (6th) 293 (Ont. C.A.); and Marcoccia v. Marcoccia 2008 ONCA 866, 60 R.F.L. (6th) 1; Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450, 65 R.F.L. (7th) 6, among others.