Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-19-00011498-0000 DATE: 20220412 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: MAZEN KHALED GELIEDAN, Applicant

• and - ABBIR RAWDAH, Respondent

BEFORE: PAPAGEORGIOU J.

COUNSEL: Mazen Khaled Geliedan, Did not appear Mr. Stangarone (mstangarone@mpllp.com), for the Respondent

HEARD: April 7, 2022

Nature of the Motion

[1] This matter has already been the subject of a number of motions which the respondent Abbir Rawdah (“Ms. Rawdah”) brought requesting the release of her child M.’s passport so that she could travel to Lebanon with M. to see M.’s maternal grandfather who has been diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer.

Background

[2] This matter has a complicated procedural history.

The Superior Court Order

[3] In 2019 the Applicant Mazen Geliedan (“Mr. Geliedan”) brought a motion pursuant to the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 seeking the return of the child M. to the United Arab Emirates (the “UAE”). As part of this proceeding, he obtained an interim Order from a Superior Court Judge that M.’s passport would be held by Mr. Geliedan’s lawyer who appeared for him in this matter (“Mr. Geliedan’s Ontario Lawyer”) pending further court order.

[4] Mr. Geliedan initially succeeded in obtaining an Order for the return of M. to the UAE.

The Court of Appeal Order

[5] On April 20, 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the Order and directed that the matter be considered by the UK court where M., Ms. Rawdah and Mr. Geliedan had previously been resident. (In that regard, there had been a previous contested family law proceeding in the UK where the court had ultimately ordered that M.’s primary care would be with Ms. Rawdah and whereby Mr. Geliedan could have parenting time (the “2015 UK Consent Custody Order”).

[6] In particular, the Court of Appeal ordered as follows:

THIS COURT ORDERS that the Appellant’s appeal is allowed and the Final Order of Justice Nakonechy dated September 17, 2019 shall be set aside.

THIS COURT ORDERS that the Respondent’s Application shall be stayed pursuant to s. 40 (a) (2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act on the condition that the Respondent promptly commences a similar proceeding in the court that issued the Consent Custody Order.

THIS COURT ORDERS that in the event the Respondent brings a further proceeding within the Ontario Superior Court of Justice respecting the child, [M.] born June [xx] [xxxx] (“the child”), nothing in this Order shall prevent the Appellant from bringing her own application (s) respecting the child.

THIS COURT ORDERS that pending further order of a United Kingdom or Ontario court, the child shall not be removed from the Greater Toronto Area.

THIS COURT ORDERS that pending further court order, the Appellant shall facilitate access between the child and the Respondent by way of phone, email, and online chat.

THIS COURT ORDERS that unless the parties can agree on costs, the Appellant shall file and serve written costs submissions of a maximum of three pages in length, no later than 14 days from the date of release of this judgment. The Respondent shall file and serve his responding written costs submissions no later than seven days following the receipt of the Appellant’s costs submissions. The Respondent’s costs submissions are also limited to three pages.

The Supreme Court of Canada Dismisses the Leave Application

[7] Mr. Geliedan’s motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed in September 2020.

Ms. Rawdah Commences Her Own Proceeding in Ontario

[8] As of April 2021, Mr. Geliedan had still not brought any proceedings in the UK.

[9] Accordingly, in April of 2021, Ms. Rawdah commenced her own proceeding in Ontario for custody (as it was then called) of M.

[10] Ms. Rawdah attempted to serve Mr. Geliedan’s Ontario Lawyer, but she would not accept service.

Mr. Geliedan’s UK Application and UK Orders

[11] Mr. Geliedan’s application in the UK court followed shortly after Ms. Rawdah commenced her application, in May 2021. In my view, the timing supports the conclusion that his UK proceeding was a response to Ms. Geliedan’s new application in Ontario.

[12] The UK Court ultimately dismissed Mr. Geliedan’s UK application.

[13] First, on October 29, 2021 Justice Mostyn of the UK court considered and granted Ms. Rawdah’s motion for security for costs. Justice Mostyn stated:

79 ii) I am satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, and specifically for the reasons set out below, that it would be just to make an order for security for costs.

iii) I do not consider the father has a meritorious case which would be stifled or hindered if an order for security for costs were made….

iv) ….I consider [Mr. Geliedan’s] case to be weak and the mother’s defence to be strong. The case is about an issue of jurisdiction, not of merits. It is impossible to see how M needs the protection of this court. She does not need protecting at all. If any orders are to be made regulating her relationship with her parents, then they should be made by the court of her habitual residence, namely Ontario. In my estimation, the father should have accepted at the earliest opportunity that he was likely to lose, and submitted to judgement to that effect here, so that he could under the proviso of the Court of Appeal of Ontario, start the relevant proceedings in that jurisdiction. I conclude that at the final hearing the mother will have a solid argument that the father’s stance is outside the spectrum of what is reasonable and that therefore, exceptionally, there should be an order for costs in her favor, which costs, incidentally, she urgently needs.

[14] Justice Mostyn also found that Mr. Geliedan owed Ms. Rawdah 127,000 pounds in unpaid costs and support and he did not accept Mr. Geliedan’s argument that he did not have the ability to pay on the basis that his father was no longer providing him funds.

[15] On November 16, 2021, Mr. Geliedan’s UK lawyer wrote to Ms. Rawdah’s as follows:

Having had a chance to carefully consider the judgment with his legal team, our client feels that he has no choice but for his application in this jurisdiction to be discontinued: (1) as was stated at the PTR hearing, our client is unable to meet the security for costs award; and (2) our client recognizes the strong steer given by Mostyn J. in his judgment regarding the merits of his substantive application.

In the circumstances our client invites your client to consent to the attached draft order with a view to bringing proceedings in this jurisdiction to an end and avoiding the time and expense of further litigation in this jurisdiction.

[16] The consent order dated December 9, 2021 provided as follows (the “2021 UK Consent Order”):

By Consent, the court orders:

The father’s application for an order for the child to be returned from Canada to Dubai, U.A.E. is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Ms. Rawdah’s Motions for the Return of M’s Passport

[17] After the 2021 UK Consent Order, Ms. Rawdah began bringing motions as a self-represented litigant seeking the return of M.’s passport. It was Ms. Rawdah’s view that Mr. Geliedan’s Ontario Lawyer no longer had the right to hold the passport given the UK consent decision.

[18] Indeed, she had been communicating with Mr. Geliedan’s Ontario Lawyer for several years taking the position that the Ontario Lawyer had no right to continue to hold the passport.

The First 14B Motion

[19] Ms. Rawdah initially brought a 14B motion without notice for return of M.’s passport. By endorsement dated December 17, 2021, Justice O’Brien ordered that she serve Mr. Geliedan’s Ontario Lawyer or Mr. Geliedan directly if his counsel was not retained.

The Second 14B Motion

[20] Ms. Rawdah then served Mr. Geliedan’s Ontario Lawyer, who then swore an affidavit indicating that she was not retained on this issue. Ms. Rawdah also served Mr. Geliedan personally by way of Fedex to his last known address on January 21, 2022.

[21] By endorsement dated January 27, 2022 Justice O’Brien directed that an in person motion would have to be arranged. She directed that Ms. Rawdah serve Mr. Geliedan by mail or email. She also requested that Mr. Geliedan’s Ontario Lawyer attend to provide information and assistance as an officer of the Court.

[22] It appears that Ms. Rawdah had not filed her proof of service on Mr. Geliedan directly, although it is clear based upon her subsequent materials filed before me that she did serve Mr. Geliedan directly by way of Fedex on January 21, 2022.

The February 18, 2022 In Court Motion

[23] The matter then proceeded before me on February 18, 2022. At that time, Mr. Geliedan’s Ontario Lawyer did not attend. Her partner attended and advised that Mr. Geliedan’s Ontario Lawyer was not available but could come another day as she was more knowledgeable with respect to this file.

[24] Nevertheless, her partner attempted to explain matters to me. She said that their firm currently held M.’s passport pursuant to a Court of Appeal Order. At this stage, I did not have any Court of Appeal Orders before me. She then referred me to the Court of Appeal decision dated April 20, 2020 but it did not contain any Order that her firm continue to hold the passport.

[25] Her partner also continued to insist that their firm was not retained with respect to this matter. Oddly, she nevertheless made submissions that Ms. Rawdah had been dishonest in previous proceedings, had breached court orders and was a flight risk.

[26] Accordingly, I then adjourned the matter to March 15, 2022, directed that Mr. Geliedan’s Ontario Lawyer attend, and directed that all former materials respecting this matter be uploaded prior to the return date. I also asked that Mr. Geliedan’s Ontario Lawyer “advise the basis upon which she is holding [M.’s] passport as I see no direction from the Court of Appeal that she is to continue to hold the passport.”

[27] I also ordered that all materials which were before the UK Court be uploaded as well as a copy of the security for costs decision from the UK which I did not have before me on February 18, 2022.

[28] I also encouraged Ms. Rawdah to retain counsel and provided her a list of resources for self-represented litigants if she could not afford one.

The March 15, 2022 In Court Motion

[29] On March 15, 2022, Ms. Rawdah attended with a lawyer who brought a motion for the return of M.’s passport as well as Orders preventing Mr. Geliedan from taking steps in Ontario without leave and without complying with previous costs and support orders.

[30] Mr. Geliedan’s Ontario Lawyer did attend as well and brought her own motion to be removed from the record. For the first time, her office advised that she had not had any communication from Mr. Geliedan since November 2021; this was the approximate time that Mr. Geliedan’s UK lawyer wrote to Ms. Rawdah indicating that he wished to negotiate a consent dismissal to the UK proceedings.

[31] It appears that the Ontario Lawyer had been forwarding all motions and correspondence received by her regarding the passport issue to Mr. Geliedan by email (as would be expected of a lawyer on the record) and he was not responding. She did not make any submission or provide any evidence that her emails were not deliverable.

[32] Although she was seeking to get off the record and had had no communication from Mr. Geliedan, like her partner, she also argued that Ms. Rawdah had been dishonest in previous proceedings, had breached court orders and that Ms. Rawdah was a flight risk. She even had her law clerk file an affidavit with a heading called “Flight Risk”.

[33] This affidavit selectively set out parts of the prior 2019 record which supported Mr. Geliedan’s position, even evidence that the Court of Appeal had not found persuasive. Indeed, there were no new facts other than the ones the Court of Appeal had already considered.

[34] I did not ask counsel to do this, not in my endorsement and not at the hearing. All I had asked is that they upload the prior materials and that they explain the legal basis for their continuing to hold M.’s passport.

[35] I add that after Mr. Geliedan’s Ontario Lawyer filed her clerk’s affidavit, Ms. Rawdah filed a response addressing all allegations made in the original 2019 application again. All of this no doubt increased Ms. Rawdah’s costs.

[36] With respect to service issues, the Ontario Lawyer argued that service upon her was not service upon Mr. Geliedan. In particular, she says she could not be on the record in this matter as this proceeding was brought as a motion and not an application so that Mr. Geliedan did not attorn to the Ontario jurisdiction. In my view the concept of attornment is not relevant to Mr. Geliedan’s 2019 motion as there are clear bases upon which courts may exercise jurisdiction in such proceedings--although this concept appears to be related to some of the arguments made in Mr. Geliedan’s 2019 factum. In any event, being on the record for a motion does not make a lawyer any less on the record than if a proceeding is structured as an application. There is no evidence of a limited scope retainer before me.

[37] I found the continued argument that the Ontario Lawyer was not retained to deal with the passport issue unconvincing. The Order directing that the passport be held was made in this very Ontario proceeding by a Superior Court Judge where the Ontario Lawyer appeared as counsel of record. If the Ontario Lawyer is no longer retained, then Mr. Geliedan failed to have her removed and replaced so that he could be served somewhere else with motions related to the relief he had obtained, if necessary. Mr. Geliedan is not a vulnerable party; he is a sophisticated litigant who has already been involved in three family law proceedings related to M. where he had competent counsel.

[38] The fact that the Ontario Lawyer ultimately moved to get off the record supports the conclusion that she was still on the record and representing Mr. Geliedan.

[39] Mr. Geliedan’s Ontario Lawyer also said that she was concerned that he may be unwell as he has health issues and had previously been too unwell to attend in Ontario when the matter was heard in 2019. She did not have any current information in this regard. Nevertheless, after the hearing, to be fair to Mr. Geliedan, I reviewed the old file to consider this possibility. In 2019 he had indicated that he had to undergo a procedure for a bilateral varicocelectomy (removal of swollen veins around the scrotum), a hernia and an internal hemorrhoid. His affidavit did not suggest that he has any ongoing or significant health ailment. Further, within the body of his 2019 Exhibits, there are multiple videos of Mr. Geliedan trying to facetime M. around the time of the 2019 hearing which also recorded him driving in his car and in other places looking and sounding very well despite these alleged issues.

[40] There is nothing in the UK reasons which suggest any infirmity, ongoing or otherwise. There is no evidence that he disclosed any health issues to his Ontario Lawyer when he communicated with her in November 2021.

[41] The Ontario Lawyer made a valiant attempt to continue to serve Mr. Geliedan’s interests, but alas there can be no case without a client who is prepared to show up.

[42] With respect to service issues, even though it was my view that Mr. Geliedan had been properly served by delivery of Ms. Rawdah’s motions to his Ontario Lawyer pursuant to r. 6(2) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, and even though she forwarded them to Mr. Geliedan, out of an abundance of caution, and because of the nature of this proceeding, I directed that Ms. Rawdah serve Mr. Geliedan personally at the addresses which his Ontario Lawyer confirmed (3 email addresses and the same physical address where Ms. Rawdah had sent the FedEx).

[43] I also ordered her to serve him at the cellphone number Ms. Rawdah had for him. Mr. Geliedan’s Ontario Lawyer could not confirm that this was his cellphone number; she advised that she only communicated with him by email.

[44] I note that at the March 15, 2022 hearing I also had the Registrar phone this telephone number. The Registrar advised that it went to voicemail and he left a message. I note that when a Registrar telephones someone the missed call which shows up is typically from the Ontario Government.

[45] I also note that upon removing the Ontario Lawyer from the record, I ordered that M.’s passport be delivered by the Ontario Lawyer to Ms. Rawdah’s current solicitor.

The April 7, 2022 In Court Motion

[46] Prior to the April 7, 2022 return date, I ensured that Mr. Geliedan was advised of the Zoom co-ordinates by email to the three addresses provided by the Ontario Lawyer.

[47] On April 7, 2022, this matter proceeded before me again. Service was effected pursuant to my Order. Mr. Geliedan did not attend, again.

Summary of Service Made on Mr. Geliedan

[48] This Court has gone to great lengths to ensure that Mr. Geliedan was served. In summary: a) Pursuant to Justice O’Brien’s December 13, 2021 Order, Ms. Rawdah served Mr. Geliedan with her original motion requesting the return of M.’s passport so she could travel to Lebanon, by FedEx on February 21, 2021; b) Ms. Rawdah also served Mr. Geliedan’s Ontario Lawyer with motions related to these issues. The Ontario Lawyer forwarded these motions to Mr. Geliedan; c) Pursuant to my March 15, 2022 Order, Ms. Rawdah then served Mr. Geliedan again at addresses provided by the Ontario Lawyer when she got off the record; d) As noted above, the Registrar also telephoned Mr. Geliedan on March 15, 2022 and left a message.

[49] Therefore, Mr. Geliedan has had multiple notices of this motion which ultimately proceeded on an uncontested basis. He did not file any materials. To the extent they have any remaining evidentiary validity, I am striking all affidavits previously filed by Mr. Geliedan in 2019 as well as his notice of motion, for reasons more particularly set out below. I am also striking the unrequested affidavit filed by his former Ontario Lawyer which is filled with hearsay and only selectively summarizes and attaches some evidence contained in the 2019 record in any event. His 2019 evidence cannot be admitted through the backdoor with a law clerk’s affidavit in circumstances where he has failed to respond or prosecute this matter himself.

[50] The only evidence properly before me in respect of this motion is Ms. Rawdah’s.

Findings of Fact

[51] On the record before me, based upon Ms. Rawdah’s uncontradicted affidavit evidence, she has always been M.’s primary caregiver.

[52] Shortly after their separation in 2013, Mr. Geliedan moved to Saudi Arabia where his family lives. He had always talked about moving with M. to Saudi Arabia and that was something which Ms. Rawdah did not want. On April 2, 2018 Mr. Geliedan convinced Ms. Rawdah to travel with M. to Dubai in the UAE for a 2 week vacation where he would meet them. Ms. Rawdah had return tickets and her mother was waiting for her in her UK apartment for when she returned. Upon her arrival in Dubai, Mr. Geliedan confiscated M.’s and Ms. Rawdah’s passport.

[53] Ms. Rawdah did not speak Arabic and spent the next 14 months attempting to retrieve the passports and contacting the police and embassy to no avail. She was afraid of Mr. Geliedan who was abusive and physically assaulted her; she tried to appease him in the hopes he would allow her to leave but he never did. She was particularly afraid that he would find a way to take M. to Saudi Arabia where she felt she would have no rights.

[54] She escaped on May 16, 2019 to Lebanon. She is not a UK citizen, her mother had left the UK after she did not return, and Ms. Rawdah did not know whether she could return to the UK. So she came to Ontario where her mother and other family members are. I note she had been living with her mother in the UK when she left for her trip to the UAE in 2018.

[55] The 2015 UK Consent Custody Order provided that M.’s residence would be in the UK unless a court order provided otherwise or unless the parties agreed otherwise. By preventing M.’s return to the UK, it is Mr. Geliedan who breached the UK Consent Custody Order and who prevented the resumption of M.’s habitual residence. After more than a year in the UAE, Ms. Rawdah no longer had a home to return to in the UK.

Is Mr. Geliedan in breach of the Court of Appeal Order dated April 20, 2020?

[56] As noted above, on April 20, 2020, the Court of Appeal stayed Mr. Geliedan’s proceeding on the condition that he promptly commence a similar proceeding in the UK. The Interpretation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21 provides that:

10. The interpretation that should be employed is that which best achieves the objects and purposes of the statute.

[57] Matters related to the removal of a child from one jurisdiction to another are generally considered to be urgent because the longer a child remains in one jurisdiction or with one parent, the more ties they develop and the more traumatic it is to the child to relocate them. In my view, when the Court of Appeal said “promptly” it did not mean one year later.

[58] Indeed, the Oxford Dictionary defines “promptly” as “with little or no delay” or “immediately.”

[59] As noted above, Mr. Geliedan waited until May 2021 to bring proceedings in the UK which were only brought in response to Ms. Rawdah’s new Ontario application issued in April 2021. And after he proposed a consent dismissal in the UK in November 2021, he failed to commence any additional proceedings in Ontario.

[60] In my view, this delay has been unreasonable and constitutes non-compliance with the Court of Appeal’s Order; technically this was not a breach as it was his decision as to whether he would bring the proceeding in the UK, but this non-compliance is still relevant to the motion by Ms. Rawdah.

[61] Apart from the fact that he has not filed any materials contesting the facts asserted by Ms. Rawdah, his delay also casts significant doubt on the bona fides of his initial motion/application where he made serious allegations regarding not only Ms. Rawdah’s conduct, but her mental fitness and instability. It is hard to accept that a parent so concerned about a child would fail to take urgent steps to continue the quest for that child’s return from an allegedly mentally unfit and unstable parent.

[62] Further, although very wealthy Mr. Geliedan has never seen M. in Ontario these past three years. He had counsel and he could have brought a motion if Ms. Rawdah would not agree but there is no evidence he even tried. As well, his electronic communication with M. is sporadic. From May 2020 to January 2021 there was no contact between M. and Mr. Geliedan. Afterwards, it was irregular and inconsistent and mostly occurred when M. sought to contact him. Sometimes, he did not answer his cell phone. It is difficult to accept that a parent concerned about a child would fail to try to see that child or maintain a greater presence in that child’s life particularly in light of his allegations.

[63] One could speculate that Mr. Geliedan is simply a devastated father who has given up; however, this does not explain his delay in commencing the UK proceeding or his failure to respond to these motions; his delay, his failure to respond to Ms. Rawdah’s motions in respect of M.’s passport, his failure to try to see M. all these years, as well as all other uncontradicted facts before me support the conclusion that this matter has always been about control for Mr. Geliedan.

[64] If he cannot have M. returned to him (and Ms. Rawdah who would in all likelihood also return to the UAE if a removal order was made), then he will make life difficult for Ms. Rawdah. She remains under the dark cloud of being a child abductor because of his allegations and delay in prosecuting this matter to completion. She travelled on her own to see her father in January 2022 and had booked a connecting flight through Qatar for her departure. Upon reaching the Qatar airport a Qatar Airways security confiscated her passport for two hours advising her that she could not board the plane as she was blacklisted. They eventually told her that they were aware of her court case and asserted their belief that even on her own she was not permitted to leave Canada. She had to stay at the Qatar airport for 18 hours and eventually flew back to Lebanon to leave directly from there. She believes that Mr. Geliedan is responsible for this blacklisting of her. Notably, nothing in the Court of Appeal Order prevented Ms. Rawdah from travelling on her own.

[65] Mr. Geliedan’s conduct is also making M.’s life difficult but he does not appear concerned about this. These last three years, M. has been unable to leave the Greater Toronto Area. She cannot go on vacation or even on school trips that are outside the Greater Toronto Area. She cannot visit her terminally ill maternal grandfather.

[66] Therefore, on the uncontested record before me, Mr. Geliedan kept Ms. Rawdah and M. prisoner in the UAE for more than a year when he confiscated their passports, and then effectively kept them prisoner in Toronto for almost three years when he obtained court orders and then failed to proceed with this matter with the required and court ordered promptness. This constitutes a pattern of coercive control: Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3, s. 2(1).

Orders Sought by Ms. Rawdah

[67] With respect to whether or not Ms. Rawdah may travel with M., the Court of Appeal directed that M. would be required to stay in the Greater Toronto Area pending further order of a UK Court or an Ontario Court. The Court of Appeal Order did not specify that any such further order would have to be made by the Court of Appeal—rather, by an Ontario Court which the Superior Court is. Indeed, the Court of Appeal does not decide matters as a court of first instance.

[68] With respect to M.’s passport, the Order was made by a Superior Court Judge in this proceeding and was subject to further Order of this Court.

[69] Therefore, this Court may address the issues raised by Mr. Rawdah related to travel and M.’s passport if appropriate.

[70] Relevant to this consideration is the fact that Mr. Geliedan has currently failed to comply with several court orders as follows: a. He failed to bring proceedings in the UK promptly; b. He failed to pay $37,500 in costs pursuant to the May 29, 2020 Court of Appeal Order; c. He failed to pay approximately 144,000 pounds in child support pursuant to the 2015 UK Consent Order; and d. He failed to pay $92,327 in costs pursuant to the December 16, 2021 UK Order (converted from pounds).

[71] Court orders are not a suggestion or a guideline. They are mandatory and must be obeyed: Dickie v. Dickie, 2006 CarswellOnt 118 (C.A.) para 85 aff’d 2007 CarswellOnt 606 (S.C.C.) paras 607, Taylor v. Taylor, 2005 CarswellOnt. 5264, Clark v. Clark, 2014 ONCA 175.

[72] Pursuant to r.1(8) where a party breaches a court order the court may make any order it deems just including dismissing a claim, striking out an application, notice of motion or order that the party is not entitled to any further order from the court unless the court orders otherwise.

[73] In my view, it is not appropriate to exercise any discretion in favor of Mr. Geliedan to not sanction his behavior; he has not even bothered to show up and explain his non-compliance: Ferguson v. Charlton, 2008 ONCJ 1, Myers v. Myers, 2014 ONSC 1804, at para 29.

[74] Despite the unsolicited arguments from Mr. Geliedan’s former Ontario Lawyer, I am satisfied that Ms. Rawdah is not a flight risk. She has a job and fiancé in Toronto and she has been a Canadian citizen since 1994. Her mother, brother, three aunts and over a dozen cousins live here. M. has attended school here for the last three years. She has a family doctor, a dentist and many friends and extracurricular activities.

[75] In any event, Ms. Rawdah has nothing to flee from; there is no pending application in Ontario brought by Mr. Geliedan (or even a threatened one) even though almost four months have elapsed since the UK consent dismissal, and he was able to communicate with his former Ontario Lawyer around the time of this dismissal.

[76] In my view, Mr. Geliedan has created a situation where M.’s life is in limbo. He is not available to provide his consent, will not respond, has not respected court orders, has failed to proceed with this matter diligently (and now not at all), and is not significantly involved in M.’s life.

[77] In all the circumstances, it is difficult to conceive of any Ontario court ordering M.’s removal and relocation to the UAE at this stage.

[78] Section 22(3) of the Children’s Law Reform Act specifically states that:

The removal or withholding of a child without the consent of all persons having decision- making authority with respect to the child does not alter the habitual residence of the child unless there has been acquiescence or undue delay in commencing due process by the person from whom the child is removed or withheld .[Emphasis added]

[79] Even if Mr. Geliedan had brought proceedings, and there was still a contested record as to what had occurred, Ms. Rawdah would have a powerful argument that Mr. Geliedan has failed to act in M.’s best interests, that it is in her best interests to remain in the community that she has been in for the last three years, that a removal Order would be traumatic for M. at this stage, that there has been undue delay in commencing due process, and that Mr. Geliedan has now acquiesced to M.’s residence being Ontario in any event.

[80] Finally, r. 2(2) of the Family Law Rules provides that the primary objective is to deal with cases justly; courts are required to promote this objective by dealing with cases in a way that saves time and expense for the parties. I see no reason why the relief requested cannot be obtained by way of this motion in this proceeding where Mr. Geliedan obtained his original orders.

[81] In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that an Order should issue directing that Ms. Rawdah’s lawyer may now release M.’s passport to Ms. Rawdah pursuant to section 28(1) (c)(v) of the Children’s Law Reform Act and that she may travel outside Canada with M. without Mr. Geliedan’s consent. In my view, there is no longer any basis for this Court to maintain this relief obtained by Mr. Geliedan. Further, it is in M.’s best interests that she be permitted to travel to Lebanon to see her terminally ill maternal grandfather.

[82] See the following cases where courts have made similar orders with respect to travel: Tokaleh v. Hassan, 2014 ONSC 705, 2014 CarswellOnt 1449, Van v. Palombi, 2018 ONSC 6000, 2018 CarswellOnt 172456, Sandhu v. Sandhu, 2010 ONSC 6700, 2010 CarswellOnt 11253, O. (B.T.) v. A. (A.), 2013 ONCJ 708, 2013 CarswellOnt 17790, W. (M.A.) v. W. (J.A.), 2013 ONSC 600, 2013 CarswellOnt 1055.

[83] I am also sanctioning Mr. Geliedan’s conduct by ordering that he may not continue these proceedings or bring any further proceedings in Ontario in relation to M. (other than related to his parenting time if he seeks it) without seeking leave and without first complying with the above costs and support orders, as well as the costs order set out below. I see no reason to punish M. for Mr. Geliedan’s failures and it is still in her interest to have a relationship with her father.

Costs

[84] Ms. Rawdah requests $15,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

[85] I have no hesitation making this order even though it appears it will never be paid. I have found that Mr. Geliedan’s behavior constitutes coercive control. This kind of conduct is implicitly designed and calculated to harm Ms. Rawdah emotionally and constitutes bad faith. Ms. Rawdah has been put to great expense in this proceeding, and a full indemnity costs order is required to sanction Mr. Geliedan’s behavior.

Order

[86] Therefore, this Court Orders that: a) Pursuant to section 28(1)(c)(v) of the Children’s Law Reform Act Ms. Rawdah’s lawyer shall release M.’s passport to Ms. Rawdah; b) Pursuant to section 16.1(4) of the Divorce Act, Ms. Rawdah may travel with M. outside of Canada without seeking Mr. Geliedan’s consent; c) Pursuant to r.1(8) of the Family Law Rules Mr. Geliedan is in breach of various court orders and shall not continue these proceedings or commence any proceedings in respect of the child M. (other than related to his parenting time if he seeks it) without leave of this court and without complying with the above court orders; d) Pursuant to r. 24(8) of the Family Law Rules Mr. Geliedan shall pay $15,000 in costs in respect of this motion within 15 days; e) The proceeding commenced by Ms. Rawdah in Oshawa shall be traversed to Toronto; f) If Ms. Rawdah has any other reason to bring proceedings against Mr. Geliedan or needs to serve him for any reason, she may do so by serving him in accordance with my March 15, 2022 endorsement; and g) Ms. Rawdah’s counsel may forward a draft Order in respect of this matter to my attention. Approval as to form and content by Mr. Geliedan is not required.

Papageorgiou J. Released: April 12, 2022