COURT FILE NO.: FS-18-0091342-00 DATE: 2024-01-12

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

MUSSAB FAHMI Applicant

• and -

MARIAM MYRA SHAIKH and MEHDI MOHAMMAD FAHMI Respondents

Counsel: Paul S. Pellman, for the Applicant Omer S. Chaudhry, for the Respondent Mariam Myra Shaikh Paul S. Pellman, for the Respondent Mehdi Mohammad Fahmi

HEARD: November 15, 2023

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Fowler Byrne J.

[1] The Applicant Husband Mussab Fahmi (“the Husband”) and his brother, the Respondent Mehdi Mohammad Fahmi (“the Brother”) have brought a motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss all claims brought by the Respondent Wife Mariam Myra Shaikh (“the Wife”) as set out in her Amended Answer. At the hearing of this motion, the Husband and Brother clarified that they were only seeking the dismissal of property related issues, and that the parenting and support issues should proceed to trial. Accordingly, for the Husband, this is a motion for partial summary judgment. If the motion is granted with respect to the Brother, his involvement in the litigation will be at an end.

I. Background

[2] The Husband and the Wife were married on April 7, 2007. There are two children of the marriage, who are now 15 years old and 13 years old. There are two possible dates of separation. The Wife claims they separated on February 15, 2015. The Husband claims they separated on May 20, 2017.

[3] The Husband started this litigation by seeking a simple divorce. The Wife responded with an Answer that claimed custody (as it was known then) support for herself and the children, and equalization of net family property.

[4] The parties have already consented to an Order severing the divorce. An interim order was put in place on May 14, 2019, governing custody, access and child support. A Voice of the Child Report was prepared, dated October 7, 2022.

[5] On May 14, 2019, Justice Harris, having heard evidence that title of the matrimonial home was held by the Brother, ordered that the Brother be added as a party. On June 17, 2022, the Wife obtained leave to amend her Answer, and the Husband obtained leave to amend his Reply. These amended pleadings form the basis of this motion.

II. Issues

[6] To decide this motion, I must determine:

a) Does the Wife have standing to make the property claims advanced in her Amended Answer? and

b) Is there a genuine issue raised in the Wife’s property claims that requires a trial, and if not, is summary judgment appropriate?

III. Analysis

A. Standing

[7] Approximately one week prior to the hearing of this motion, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its decision in Karatzoglou v Commisso, 2023 ONCA 738. The Husband and Brother submit that this case clearly states that the Wife has no standing to make the property claims advanced.

[8] The Wife’s property claims are as follows:

a) Equalization of the net family property;

b) A declaration of a constructive trust in her and the Husband’s favour as against the Brother, with respect to the matrimonial home “…as [the Brother] holds the matrimonial home…in trust for the parties and must transfer the home back to the parties…”;

c) A finding that the Brother holds multiple assets in trust for the Wife and the Husband (namely, businesses, real properties and vehicles) which should be subject to equalization;

d) A declaration that the Wife and the Husband “paid for and were carrying the matrimonial home”;

e) A declaration that the Brother has been enriched without any juristic reason for the enrichment or deprivation.

[9] Clearly the Wife has standing to claim equalization of net family properties as between her and her Husband.

[10] Setting aside the poor framework of her other claims – a constructive trust is a remedy that may be awarded only if first, an unjust enrichment has been established – it is clear that the unjust enrichment claims are made against both the Husband and the Brother.

[11] In Karatzoglou at para. 24, Benotto J.A. adopted the reasoning of McGee J. in Morris v Nicolaidis, 2021 ONSC 2957 at para. 38 wherein she stated:

A claim that a third person holds property in trust for a non-titled spouse, or that a non-titled spouse has a beneficial interest in property, or a monetary claim arising from the acquisition, maintenance or use of that property can only arise from the personal, direct deprivation of the non-titled spouse. An equalization claim is, at best, an indirect legal interest. It is therefore insufficient to confer standing to a person to make a trust claim on behalf of a non-titled spouse or former spouse.

[12] As summarized in Karatzoglou at para. 25, “a non-titled spouse cannot assert a trust claim against a third party on behalf of a spouse for equalization purposes.”

[13] That being said, in Morris at para. 40, McGee J. indicated that if a meritorious trust claim is not advanced by a non-titled spouse, the other spouse could seek to vary the equalization between the parties if the resulting equalization payment is unconscionable as per section 5(6) of the Family Law Act. This option was also adopted by the Court of Appeal in Karatzoglou at para. 24.

[14] Karatzoglou is only partially applicable to this motion. Clearly, the Wife cannot advance an unjust enrichment claim on behalf of the Husband as against the Brother, but she certainly has standing to assert such a claim against the Brother directly, which she has done.

[15] Accordingly, the Wife’s claims for unjust enrichment on behalf of the Husband must fail and should be dismissed, but her claims on her own behalf shall survive.

B. Partial Summary Judgment

[16] This is a motion for summary judgment that will only partially resolve all outstanding issues in the Application.

[17] Summary judgment is available if the Husband and the Brother can show that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial: Family Law Rules, r. 16(6). The onus is on them to do so.

[18] The leading case on summary judgment is Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, which has been adopted in the family law context. Hryniak states that there will be no genuine issue for trial if I am able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits of the motion. This will occur when the process allows me to make the necessary findings of fact, allows me to apply law to these facts, and it is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a fair result (see para. 49).

[19] I should first take a liberal approach to the evidence filed by the parties without using my fact-finding powers. If, at this first stage, I have the evidence necessary to decide the motion, there will be no genuine issue for trial. If though, there appears to be genuine issues for trial, I can use my fact-finding powers in order to determine if the need for a trial can be avoided by using these new tools to come to a fair and just result: r. 16(6.1); Philion v Philion, 2015 ONSC 4255, at para. 17.

[20] In a motion for summary judgment, each party must put their best foot forward. A party cannot succeed on a motion for summary judgment by arguing that further or better evidence is forthcoming, such as at trial. I am entitled to assume that the evidence before me is the best evidence available and all that will be available at trial: Sweda Farms Ltd. v. Egg Farmers of Ontario, 2014 ONSC 1200, at paras. 26-27, aff’d 2014 ONCA 878, leave to appeal, refused [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 97; Chao v. Chao, 2017 ONCA 701, 99 R.F.L. (7th) 281, at para. 24.

[21] Partial summary judgment should only be granted in the clearest of cases where the issue is clearly severable from the balance of the case: Butera v Chown, Cairns LLP, 2017 ONCA 783, at paras. 26-34. The factors to be considered are whether the issue before me can be bifurcated from the remaining litigation, whether it can be dealt with in an expeditious and cost-effective manner, and whether there is a possibility of inconsistent findings by different courts: Feltz Design Build Ltd. V. Larson, 2022 ONCA 150 at para. 18.

[22] Summary judgment might not be in the interest of justice where there is a risk of duplicative proceedings or inconsistent findings of fact: Hryniak, at para. 60.

1. Equalization of Net Family Property

[23] In this case, the Husband must show that there are no genuine issues that require a trial regarding the Wife’s claim for equalization.

[24] Despite seeking this relief, the Husband failed to file an up-to-date sworn financial statement. Neither has the Wife. No earlier versions of sworn financial statements were uploaded to Caselines. The Husband made a blanket statement that there are no assets to equalize.

[25] Given the lack of a sworn financial statement, or a net family property statement, it is unclear how this court is to determine that there are no triable issues with respect to equalization. Also, as indicated further in these reasons, the assets of the Husband are far from determined, and the Brother’s evidence as to the Husband’s business interests is inconsistent. Accordingly, this issue will proceed to trial.

2. Unjust Enrichment

[26] In this case, the Brother and Husband must show that there are no genuine issues that require a trial regarding the Wife’s claim for unjust enrichment. In particular, I must determine if the Brother has been enriched, whether the Wife has been correspondingly deprived, and if so, whether there was any juristic reason for this.

[27] In support of his motion, the Husband makes a blanket claim in his affidavit that neither he nor the Wife have an interest in the various properties, companies or vehicles listed by the Wife. As will be seen further on, this does not appear to be the case with respect to all the assets listed by the Wife. The Husband also states that the Wife has been provided evidence of this. I assume that the evidence to which he refers is attached to the affidavits served and filed. As indicated, all parties, including the Husband, are to put their best foot forward. If such evidence was not filed, I am entitled to assume that it cannot be produced for trial.

[28] In support of this motion, the Brother also filed an affidavit. In his first affidavit, he states that the Wife was provided with a binder of disclosure explaining all the companies that the Wife claims the Husband had an interest in. He also stated that on May 8, 2019, he swore another affidavit providing further information and documentation supporting his position. For reasons that are not entirely clear, it does not appear that any of this documentation was filed in support of this motion. The Husband and Brother do not include on their confirmation for this motion that they were relying on any such documentation or the May 2019 affidavit.

[29] In the Brother’s affidavit, sworn in reply to the Wife’s responding affidavit, he provides some more detail, but again, the “binder” of information that purportedly explained the corporate structure was not provided to this court. At times, the information in the Brother’s reply affidavit contradicts what was in his first affidavit.

[30] Questioning of the Husband and the Brother took place in August 2021. The Wife has not yet been questioned. It appears the parties were cross-examinations of the parties’ affidavits. I was provided with no transcripts. I was not referred to any transcripts from any cross-examinations or from any questioning, nor were any made available to me on Caselines. I was only referred to the odd excerpt from the Wife’s cross-examination that was included in the Husband and Brother’s factum, which did not pertain to property issues.

[31] In order to determine if there are any genuine issues requiring a trial, I have examined each of the claims with respect to each of the real properties and businesses listed by the Wife. At times, the Brother’s evidence remained consistent, albeit unsupported. There were a number of instances though, where the Brother’s evidence was inconsistent. The Husband’s evidence, for the most part, was unsupported.

a. Matrimonial Home

[32] It is uncontested that title of the matrimonial home, located at 1451 Larchview Trail, Mississauga (“Matrimonial Home”) is held by the Brother. It is also uncontested that the Brother purchased it on August 30, 2007, approximately four months after the parties were married. The spouses moved in around that time and the Husband’s other brother Mo Fahmi (“Mo”) resided in the basement apartment of the Matrimonial Home. Mo is now deceased.

[33] The Husband maintains that he and Wife made no financial contribution to the Matrimonial Home – no payment of the mortgage, taxes or for any renovations. They lived rent free. He maintains that the Brother paid the downpayment. The Brother allowed them to reside there while he awaited the arrival of his parents and siblings from Germany, who were then to move into the house.

[34] The Wife maintains that she always believed the Husband to be the owner and that the Brother provided the down payment as a gift. The Wife further claims that extensive renovations were done to the home as soon as they moved in. They changed all flooring and repainted, they added a bathroom to the master bedroom and renovated another and moved the laundry upstairs. These renovations took four months, delaying the move in date until January 2008. Windows were replaced two years later. The backyard was later improved, including new fencing, a pergola and installing a gas line. Again, the Wife and the Husband made all the decisions and she believed the Husband paid for it with family funds. She claims later, they re-paved the driveway, and re-stained the hardwood inside. In November 2008, they extensively renovated the basement. Other upkeep and upgrades continued including the installation of an alarm system.

[35] The Wife claims that the Husband paid for the renovations and that she and the Husband made all the decisions with respect to the renovations. She observed the Husband pay cash to a contractor.

[36] In support of this claim, the Wife has attached a number of receipts from Rona, the Home Depot, and various suppliers and tradespeople. One invoice from a bath supply store is made out to “M. Fahmi” who could be the Brother or the Husband. The Wife claims she has more receipts.

[37] The Wife also provided evidence that the home insurance was in the joint names of the Husband, the Brother and Mo. It was not tenant’s insurance but rather homeowners’ coverage.

[38] Despite the Husband’s and Brother’s position that the Wife has no interest in the matrimonial home, the Wife’s evidence raises a triable issue. Financial contribution is not the only basis of an unjust enrichment claim. There was not a sufficient response to the Wife’s evidence about the extent of the renovations performed and her contributions during the marriage.

b. 93 River St.

[39] The Wife has provided evidence that the Husband was an owner of 93 River Street but that his interest was transferred to Mo just prior to Mo’s death and after the date of separation claimed by the Wife. Given that the date of separation is a live issue, the Husband’s interest in this property cannot be ignored at this stage.

c. 3103-33 Singer Court

[40] The Brother has admitted in his affidavit that the Husband was put on title. He also admitted that the Husband reported the rental income from this property.

[41] I have been advised that the property has been sold. No one has provided any evidence of when this occurred, or what happened to the proceeds, except that the Wife indicates it was sold “during separation.”

d. 1730 Lincolnshire Blvd.

[42] With respect to 1730 Lincolnshire Blvd. the Wife maintains it was purchased by the Husband and that he did a lot of work to renovate the property. She provided bank statements in the Husband’s name, related to this property, showing the payout of the property mortgage on May 31, 2016, which is after the date of separation, as pleaded by the Mother.

e. 1410 Larchview Trail

[43] It is the Wife’s evidence that the Husband now lives on the main floor of this property, and that he has lived there since the Brother moved to a new home. Neither the Brother nor the Husband provided any evidence of ownership of this property. Again, a Deed would be easy to provide, and attach as an exhibit. Unfortunately, no such evidence was provided.

f. The Businesses

[44] Of critical importance in the ownership of various Pita Land franchises. It appears that the Brother is the patriarch of his extended family and has been very successfully involved in a number of Pita Land franchises and other ventures. The Brother and the Husband even got the Wife’s own father involved.

[45] Over the course of their marriage, it was the Wife’s understanding that the Husband had an ownership interest in various Pita Land franchises. The Wife claims that she helped clean up and interview employees when they took over ownership of one of the locations. She claims to have worked in one prior to marriage. After marriage, she claims she worked from home “punching fake orders” as per the Husband’s request.

[46] The vast majority of the evidence related to these businesses came from the Brother. The Brother maintains that he is the owner or officer of most of these businesses. Some of these companies have since been dissolved. Some were previously run by Mo or other family members. Similar explanations were given about the various real properties and vehicles. The Brother makes a blanket statement that the Wife never contributed to any of these properties, including purchasing, renovating or the day-to-day costs associated with them. In some instances, his evidence is consistent, albeit unsupported. In some instances, the Brother’s evidence raises serious credibility issues. I have highlighted those that have caused me concern.

i. 1773859 Ontario Inc. – “Pita Land - King”

[47] In his first affidavit, the Brother swears the company is solely owned by Nematollah Kamran. In response, the Wife has produced a letter dated July 5, 2011, written by a director of this company, confirming that the Husband was a director of that company and a 60% shareholder, and that he earned $40,000 per year in that position. In his reply, the Brother then acknowledges the Husband’s ownership but states that the Husband put no money into the company and that the Husband was involved on the Brother’s behalf. He claims the letter was written to obtain a mortgage only.

ii. 6140815 Canada Inc. – “Pita Land Gerrard”

[48] At first, the Brother indicated that the company is solely owned by his brother Mo, and that the business is now dissolved. After reviewing the Wife’s responding evidence, (that she helped clean up this location and that the Husband became a 66% owner in 2005, which was prior to the date of marriage), the Brother filed a reply affidavit. In that reply affidavit, the Brother now acknowledges that the Husband was the sole shareholder of this company from 2010 to 2013, and then his shares were transferred to Mo in 2014. I have no evidence of that transfer or any indication that there was any consideration for that transfer. The company was dissolved on July 6, 2017, which was after the date of separation claimed by both parties. The Husband’s interest in this company is relevant at the date of marriage, and potentially at the date of separation.

iii. 1744329 Ontario Inc. – “Pita Land Woodbridge”

[49] In his first affidavit, the Brother swears that this company is owned by Saadia Ashraf. In response, the Wife has produced a letter, dated July 6, 2011, written by a director of this company, confirming that the Husband was a director of that company and a 60% shareholder, and that he earned $36,000 per year in that position.

[50] In his reply affidavit, the Brother changes his evidence and states that the Husband never had more than 51% of the shares and that he was removed as a shareholder in 2013. This letter was only written to obtain a mortgage. The Brother also indicates that the Husband received no dividends.

iv. 1754361 Ontario Inc. – “Pita Land Steeles”

[51] In his affidavit, the Brother indicates that the company the Wife identified as “Pita Land Steeles” was actually Tahoe Investments Ltd. of which he was the sole director and shareholder.

[52] After reviewing the Wife’s evidence on this company, the Husband swore a further affidavit wherein he stated that 1754261 Ontario Inc. was actually the company related to Pita Land on Steeles Avenue, and not Tahoe Investments Ltd. The Brother then admits that he transferred shares to the Husband for one year only in 2013, which were thereafter were transferred to Mo in 2014. I have no evidence of that transfer, the circumstances or the consideration for the transfer.

v. 8786160 Canada Inc. – Pita Land – Nestle Brampton

[53] In his first affidavit, the Brother states that this company was in the name of his deceased brother, and that the company is now dissolved.

[54] In his reply affidavit, the Brother admits that the Husband was the sole shareholder for this company and that it ceased operations in 2016. He claims the company had significant losses.

vi. 8316139 Canada Inc. – Pita Land Whitmore

[55] In his first affidavit, the Brother states he knows nothing of this company. Later on in the same affidavit, he swears that Mo was the sole director and shareholder and that it is now dissolved. In response, the Wife indicates that this company was started with the Husband being the director and provided a corporate profile to prove it. The profile shows that it was dissolved on August 5, 2017, which is after both proposed separation dates.

[56] In his reply affidavit, the Brother then states that he was the sole shareholder of his company. No evidence was provided by the Brother to show who the actual shareholders were, and when.

vii. 8276153 Canada Inc. – Pita Land Ajax

[57] In his first affidavit, the Brother states that this company was in Mo’s name and that it is now dissolved. In response, the Wife swore that the company was in the Husband’s name when it was opened in August 2012.

[58] In his reply affidavit, the Brother then admits that this company was wholly owned by the Husband but that the Husband’s shares were all transferred to Mo in 2014. He also indicates that the company was dissolved on June 6, 2015. I have no evidence of this transfer, or the circumstances of it and if there was any consideration.

viii. 7311281 Canada Ltd.

[59] In his first affidavit, the Brother swears that this company was owned solely by his wife Ekram Swaidan, and that she is the sole director.

[60] In his responding affidavit, the Wife claims to produce bank statements in the Husband and Ms. Swaidan’s name and that the head office of the corporation is the Husband’s address. Unfortunately, no such statements were attached. In reply, the Brother confirmed his position.

ix. 7130627 Canada Inc. o/a Pita Land Kingston

[61] In his first affidavit, the Brother indicates he was the sole director and shareholder, and that the company is now dissolved.

[62] In her responding affidavit, the Wife produced a corporate profile for this company showing the Husband, the Brother and one other as directors of the corporation, incorporated on February 26, 2009 and dissolved on December 27, 2014. In his reply affidavit, the Brother maintains he was the only shareholder, but then admits that the Husband was a director.

x. Tahoe Investment Ltd.

[63] In his first affidavit, the Brother indicates that he is the sole director and shareholder for this company.

[64] In her responding affidavit, the Wife produced a 2013 Canadian Restaurant & Foodservice Newsletter, where on page 141, the Husband is listed as the point of contact for Pita Land Inc. – Tahoe Investments Ltd.

[65] In his reply affidavit, the Brother confirms that this company was incorporated prior to the Husband coming to Canada and that he was the sole shareholder and director. He had no explanation for the Newsletter.

xi. NTHC Supplies Canada Inc.

[66] In his main affidavit, the Brother indicates he is the sole director and shareholder of this company. The Wife had no evidence with respect to this except to say she has received no information regarding it.

[67] In his reply affidavit, the Brother then states that the Husband was the sole shareholder when the company was started in 2013, but that the Husband transferred all his shares to the Brother in 2014. He provides no evidence of this transfer or the reasons for it.

xii. Tahoe Food Supplies Inc.

[68] In his main affidavit, the Brother indicates that Mo was the sole director and shareholder of this company, and that the company is now dissolved. In her responding affidavit, the Wife indicates that the Husband helped run this company and that it was not dissolved until two years after Mo’s death. The head office for this company is the Husband’s address. In his reply affidavit, the Brother repeated what was said earlier but provided no evidence to support it nor provide any explanation as to why the company was run out of the Husband’s home and who owned it after Mo’s death.

g. Vehicles

[69] In her pleadings, the Wife claims that the vehicles listed were driven by either her or the Husband. Other than that, she has little information.

[70] Given this assertion, and that the burden with respect to this motion lies with the Husband and Brother, I would have expected the Husband or Brother to provide proof of ownership of the vehicles on the two proposed dates of separation. If they belong to one of the companies, then it will be valued there. If they were in the names of either the Wife or Husband, they should be listed on their financial statement, with the verified value. No evidence was provided by the Husband or the Brother with respect to the cars, other than statements as to ownership and a denial of the Wife’s assertion.

h. Is Partial Summary Judgment Appropriate?

[71] In these circumstances, I find that partial summary judgment is not appropriate.

[72] If the Wife’s allegations are made out, it will have an impact on the equalization payment and the Husband’s support obligations. Clearly, the Husband had an interest in some of the businesses listed, either at marriage, during the marriage, or at the date of separation, depending on whose date is accepted. The Husband’s property holdings will have a direct impact on his income. By asking this court to decide the issues of property, and not the issues of support, there will undoubtedly be a duplication of proceedings, and a high risk of inconsistent findings of fact. That is not in the interest of justice.

[73] Also, I find that I am unable to make the necessary findings of fact that would allow the matter to proceed in a summary fashion.

[74] In the usual course, it would not be enough for the Wife to make unsupported allegations regarding her interest in the Brother’s businesses and properties and expect the Brother to lay out all his financial affairs for her review. These allegations though, are not made in a void. It is clear that the ownership interests of the various franchises and other corporations were frequently transferred as between family members. Despite the transfers, the Brother maintains that for the most part, they were all his businesses. This is despite his evidence that the Husband did own some of them on relevant dates. The Brother gives no reasons though, for the transfers. I have no evidence of the circumstances of those transfers, whether the Husband received any consideration, and how the transfers were treated for tax purposes. I also have no evidence as to when Mo died and the impact of his death of these various companies as it relates to the Husband.

[75] This is a motion for summary judgment. The Brother and the Husband were to provide clear and uncontradicted evidence that the Wife had no interest in the various assets listed. No doubt, documentation is available that would provide uncontradicted evidence of ownership. Instead, there is only reference to previously disclosed documentation. That is insufficient.

[76] In the case of 466369 Ontario Ltd. v. 2379078 Ontario Inc., 2018 ONSC 5877, Nishikawa J. was asked to grant summary judgment with respect to, inter alia, damages caused to a rental unit. In declining to do so, at para. 48 she indicated that on such a motion, a party must put its best foot forward on a motion for summary judgment. Evidence of blanket statements and documents, without any description or narrative connecting them to the issues was insufficient to meet the moving parties’ burden. I find I am faced with a similar lack of evidence before me now.

[77] Additionally, the Brother’s own evidence is often inconsistent. For more than a few companies, he denies any ownership interest by the Husband and then when challenged with evidence to the contrary that the Wife was able to obtain, the Brother changes his affidavit evidence in reply. The court is left with the impression that the Brother and the Father are not being forthright with the court with respect to their interest in the various companies. The Husband’s ownership interest of these businesses is a crucial fact to be determined in order to determine equalization and support. It is difficult to assess credibility on a written record, even with my fact-finding powers. If credibility cannot be done on the written record, that is a sign that oral evidence or a trial is required: Cook v. Joyce 2017 ONCA 49 at para. 92.

[78] Based on that impression, and based on the materials before me, I am not able to make the necessary findings of fact. Even viewed liberally, the contradictory nature of the evidence makes it difficult to conclude that there are no genuine issues for trial. In these circumstances, it would not be in the interests of justice to exercise my additional fact-finding powers. I would not be able to come to a just and fair result without making credibility findings, which in the circumstances of this case require a trial.

IV. Conclusion

[79] For the foregoing reasons, I make the following orders:

a) The Wife’s claim that the Brother was unjustly enriched at the expense of the Husband are dismissed;

b) The remainder of the Wife’s claims shall proceed to trial;

c) The parties are encouraged to resolve the issue of costs themselves; if they are unable, then they are to both serve and file their Costs Outline, any Offers to Settle, and their written costs submissions, limited to 2 pages, double spaced, on or before January 26, 2024; any responding submissions, with the same size restrictions, shall be served and filed by February 9, 2024;

d) Given that I have heard this motion, if the Regional Senior Justice deems it appropriate, I will be seized of this trial; and

e) The remainder of the Husband and Brother’s motion for summary judgment is dismissed.

Fowler Byrne J.

Released: January 12, 2024

COURT FILE NO.: FS-18-0091342-00 DATE: 2024-01-12

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

MUSSAB FAHMI Applicant

• and -

MARIAM MYRA SHAIKH and MEHDI MOHAMMAD FAHMI Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Fowler Byrne J.

Released: January 12, 2024