Citation and Court Information

Citation: Daud v. Temor, 2025 ONSC 3206 Newmarket Court File No.: FC-22-2175-00 Date: 2025-05-29

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Abdullah Muhammad Daud, Applicant – and – Wahida Temor, Respondent

Counsel: Applicant – Self-represented C. Baker, Counsel for the Respondent

Heard: May 27 and 28, 2025

Reasons for Decision

MacPherson J.

Requested Relief

[1] The Applicant filed an Application requesting the relief that follows: (a) a divorce; (b) spousal support; (c) decision-making and parenting time with the child, Janna; (d) child support; (e) section 7 expenses; (f) an unequal division of net family properties; (g) exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and the contents therein; and (h) freezing assets.

2On May 27, 2025 the Applicant’s pleadings were struck pursuant to a written decision of this court.

[3] The Respondent filed an Answer requesting the relief that follows: (a) a divorce; (b) spousal support; (c) decision-making for the child, Janna; (d) child support; (e) section 7 expenses; (f) equalization of net family properties; (g) exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and the contents therein; and (h) a restraining Order.

Brief Background

4The parties were married on July 26, 2011, began cohabitation on November 10, 2012 and separated on July 1, 2015.

5There is one child of the marriage namely, Janna Daud born October 15, 2014.

6Janna has resided with the Respondent since the date of separation.

Parenting Issues

7The Applicant has not seen Janna since June 18, 2016 when his file was suspended at the Regional Supervised Access Program due to his failure to pay his outstanding visitation fee.

8The Respondent states that the Applicant has not requested parenting time with Janna since 2016.

9On February 7, 2025 Justice Finlayson made an Order referring the matter to the Office of the Child’s Lawyer on an expedited basis as the Applicant, at the Settlement Conference, indicated that he was requesting parenting time although he had not seen Janna since June 18, 2016 when she was under two years of age.

10The Respondent submitted her Intake Form. The Applicant did not submit his Intake Form. The Office of the Child’s Lawyer declined the referral.

11In assessing custody and access issues, section 16 of the Divorce Act, [R.S.C. 1985 c. 3 (2nd Supp) provides direction to the court. Section 16 reads:

Order for custody 16. (1) A court of competent jurisdiction may, on application by either or both spouses or by any other person, make an order respecting the custody of or the access to, or the custody of and access to, any or all children of the marriage.

Interim order for custody (2) Where an application is made under subsection (1), the court may, on application by either or both spouses or by any other person, make an interim order respecting the custody of or the access to, or the custody of and access to, any or all children of the marriage pending determination of the application under subsection (1).

Joint custody or access (4) The court may make an order under this section granting custody of, or access to, any or all children of the marriage to any one or more persons.

Terms and conditions (6) The court may make an order under this section for a definite or indefinite period or until the happening of a specified event and may impose such other terms, conditions or restrictions in connection therewith as it thinks fit and just.

Factors (8) In making an order under this section, the court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage as determined by reference to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child.

Past conduct (9) In making an order under this section, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person unless the conduct is relevant to the ability of that person to act as a parent of a child.

Maximum contact (10) In making an order under this section, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child and, for that purpose, shall take into consideration the willingness of the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate such contact.

12The Respondent and Janna have a close and loving relationship.

13The Respondent has made all decision for Janna since separation.

14The Respondent is equipped with the knowledge of Janna’s service providers and what Janna needs to succeed.

15The Applicant is not so equipped. He has not seen Janna in eight years. Janna has no idea who he is.

16I am satisfied, on the evidence before me, that it is in Janna’s best interests to reside primarily with the Respondent and that the Respondent make all decisions for her.

17I am also satisfied that any parenting time between the Applicant and Janna needs to be supervised. The Respondent’s evidence regarding the May 2015 trip to Kingston is alarming.

18The Applicant has not requested parenting time and, most telling, did not bother to complete his Office of the Child’s Lawyer (hereinafter OCL) Intake Form following Justice Finlayson’s referral that might have provided some assistance to the court in making parenting time Orders.

Child Support and Section 7 Expenses

19The Applicant is the support payor as Janna resides exclusively with the Respondent.

20The Respondent is a T-4 employee working as a payroll administrator at Kenworth Toronto Limited.

21Justice Finlayson in his Endorsement dated October 31, 2024, nine years post separation, indicated that the Applicant was required to prove his income.

22The duty to provide financial disclosure is incorporated into Rule 13 of the Family Law Rules, which requires a party to serve and file a sworn Financial Statement along with their Answer. It also requires a party who serves a Financial Statement to provide supporting financial disclosure and to update their Financial Statement at regular intervals. Rule 13 (3.1) of the Family Law Rules also requires parties, where support is requested, to provide the income and financial information contained in subsection 21 (1) of the Child Support Guidelines.

23Section 21 of the Child Support Guidelines, O. Reg. 391/97, states:

Obligation of applicant 21. (1) A parent or spouse who is applying for an order for the support of a child and whose income information is necessary to determine the amount of the order must include with the application, (a) a copy of every personal income tax return filed by the parent or spouse including any materials that were filed with the return for each of the three most recent taxation years; (b) a copy of every notice of assessment and reassessment issued to the parent or spouse for each of the three most recent taxation years; (c) where the parent or spouse is an employee, the most recent statement of earnings indicating the total earnings paid in the year to date, including overtime, or, where such a statement is not provided by the employer, a letter from the parent’s or spouse’s employer setting out that information including the parent’s or spouse’s rate of annual salary or remuneration; (d) where the parent or spouse is self-employed, for the three most recent taxation years, (i) the financial statements of the parent’s or spouse’s business or professional practice, other than a partnership, and (ii) a statement showing a breakdown of all salaries, wages, management fees or other payments or benefits paid to, or on behalf of, persons or corporations with whom the parent or spouse does not deal at arm’s length; (e) where the parent or spouse is a partner in a partnership, confirmation of the parent’s or spouse’s income and draw from, and capital in, the partnership for its three most recent taxation years; (f) where the parent or spouse controls a corporation, for its three most recent taxation years, (i) the financial statements of the corporation and its subsidiaries, and (ii) a statement showing a breakdown of all salaries, wages, management fees or other payments or benefits paid to, or on behalf of, persons or corporations with whom the corporation, and every related corporation, does not deal at arm’s length; (g) where the parent or spouse is a beneficiary under a trust, a copy of the trust settlement agreement and copies of the trust’s three most recent financial statements; and (h) in addition to any information that must be included under clauses (c) to (g), where the parent or spouse receives income from employment insurance, social assistance, a pension, workers compensation, disability payments or any other source, the most recent statement of income indicating the total amount of income from the applicable source during the current year or, if such a statement is not provided, a letter from the appropriate authority stating the required information. O. Reg. 391/97, s. 21 (1); O. Reg. 446/01, s. 7; O. Reg. 25/10, s. 5.

Obligation of respondent (2) A parent or spouse who is served with an application for an order for the support of a child and whose income information is necessary to determine the amount of the order, must, within 30 days after the application is served if the parent or spouse resides in Canada or the United States or within 60 days if the parent or spouse resides elsewhere, or such other time limit as the court specifies, provide the court, as well as the other spouse, an applicant under section 33 of the Act or the order assignee with the documents referred to in subsection (1). O. Reg.391/97, s. 21 (2).

[24] Justice Finlayson also made an order that the Applicant respond to the Request for Information dated October 7, 2024 by way of sworn affidavit which included requests for: (a) an updated sworn Financial Statement; (b) an income determination prepared by a Chartered Business Valuator for all years from 2014 through to present; (c) the Applicant’s Income Tax Returns for 2016 through 2023 inclusive; (d) details of non-taxable income; (e) copies of any loan applications made from 2015 forward; (f) an Equifax consumer credit report; and (g) monthly bank statements.

[25] The Respondent states that the Applicant has multiple domestic and international business interests, primarily in general trading, as follows: (a) Ishan Investment Group Incorporated which was incorporated February 10, 2015; (b) Ishan Deals Incorporated which was incorporated on April 15, 2013; and (c) Ishan General Trading, a Dubai based company, owned and operated by the Applicant, his brother, his father and another partner. The company was owned on both the date of separation and on the date of marriage.

26The Applicant has not provided disclosure despite court Orders to do so. The Applicant has not provided any of his full personal Income Tax Returns with all attachments and schedules. Rather, the Applicant has only provided Notices of Assessment. This is unacceptable disclosure as there is evidence that the Applicant might have self-employment income.

27The Applicant has not provided full ledgers and Financial Statements for all three corporations: Ishan Investment Group, Ishan General Trading Dubai and Ishan Deals Incorporated. There are no corporate Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment.

28Pursuant to section 16 of the Child Support Guidelines, the starting point in determining income for support purposes is the payor’s line 150 of their Income Tax Return.

29The Child Support Guidelines provide for different methods of determining income when the starting point is not the “fairest determination of that income”¹ does “not fairly reflect all the money available to the parent or spouse”² or when a court “imputes such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate.”³

30Section 19(1) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175 reads as follows:

Imputing income 19 (1) The court may impute such amount of income to a spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, which circumstances include the following: (a) the spouse is intentionally under-employed or unemployed, other than where the under-employment or unemployment is required by the needs of a child of the marriage or any child under the age of majority or by the reasonable educational or health needs of the spouse; (b) the spouse is exempt from paying federal or provincial income tax; (c) the spouse lives in a country that has effective rates of income tax that are significantly lower than those in Canada; (d) it appears that income has been diverted which would affect the level of child support to be determined under these Guidelines; (e) the spouse’s property is not reasonably utilized to generate income; (f) the spouse has failed to provide income information when under a legal obligation to do so; (g) the spouse unreasonably deducts expenses from income; (h) the spouse derives a significant portion of income from dividends, capital gains or other sources that are taxed at a lower rate than employment or business income or that are exempt from tax; and (i) the spouse is a beneficiary under a trust and is or will be in receipt of income or other benefits from the trust.

[31] The Applicant’s notices of assessment indicate line 150 income as follows: a) 2015 - $7,000; b) 2016 – $13,511; c) 2017 - $32,356; d) 2018 - $32,053; e) 2019 – Not Disclosed f) 2020 - $62,107; g) 2021 - $48,054; h) 2022 - $62,935; i) 2023 - $75,909 and j) 2024 – Not Disclosed.

32The notices of Assessment reflect only T-4 income from Martin Brower where the Applicant works as shunter. He has done so for approximately eight years.

33The Respondent states that the Applicant also has interest in several companies, including Ishan General Trading, which is a source of foreign income. This court is not confident that the Applicant claims these amounts on his Income Tax Returns.

34The Applicant is a 16% shareholder of Ishan General Trading. The company is also owned by the Applicant’s brother, Mr. Ahmed Mohammad (16%), and the Applicant’s father, Mr. Sayed Adel (17%). There is also a 51% owner, Mr. M. Mubarak. The company trades in food stuff and it is centered in Dubai.

35The Respondent provided evidence that the company, in 2013, had net profits of 11,268,216 United Arab Emirates dirhams.

36The Respondent testified that the company was flourishing while the parties were a couple. The Respondent testified that the Applicant was able to purchase properties and cars in UAE with this income.

37In 2013 the company had assets of 13,488,795 United Arab Emirates dirhams.

38There are some bank statements in 2014 that showed the company had a cash balance of CDN $260,859.

39There are some bank statements in March 2015 that showed the company had a cash balance of CDN $500,000.

40The Respondent states that the company has branches in UAE, Turkey, and Afghanistan.

41I draw an adverse inference as a result of the Applicant’s non-disclosure. The adverse inference is that the Applicant is likely receiving income form this source.

42When I consider that the evidence is a T-4 employee earning $79,000 in 2023, I am satisfied that he has income of at least $80,000 from the date of separation.

Section 7 expenses

43The Respondent provides a record of section 7 expenses dating back to 2019.

44These expenses include medical and dental expenses, tutoring, swimming, and speech therapy.

45The total section 7 expense arrears, for which the Respondent requests a contribution, is $17,056. The Respondent requests apportionment on a 50% - 50% basis although she earns less than the Applicant. The Respondent’s income was $64,000 in 2024.

46Janna continues with speech therapy, she continues to require eyewear, and she remains active. The Respondent anticipates future section 7 expenses of $500 per month. The Respondent requests a 50% contribution of $250 per month from the Applicant. This court is of the view that this approach makes sense given the Applicant’s refusal to cooperate and based on the Applicant’s refusal to make any contributions to section 7 expenses since separation.

Equalization

[47] On October 31, 2024 Justice Finlayson also made an Order that the Applicant respond to the Request for Information dated October 7, 2024 by way of sworn affidavit, which included requests for: (a) a business valuation of the Applicant’s business interests at the date of separation and present for Ishan Investment Group, Ishan General Trading Dubai and Ishan Deals Incorporated as well as any other corporate shareholdings, joint ventures, proprietorships, in which he has an interest, legal, beneficial or otherwise; (b) the number and types of shares owned by the Applicant for Ishan Investment Group, Ishan General Trading Dubai and Ishan Deals Incorporated; (c) proof of ownership of the 190 Yamaha Sport Boat; Toyota Prada and Toyota Scion; (d) statements for all bank accounts, investment accounts, savings plans at the date of separation; (e) statements and documents showing debts on the date of separation; (f) a list of all real estate holdings held personally or through a corporation; and (g) regarding 101 Charles Street, suite 2904, the source of payment to purchase the unit; a copy of the transfer; final reporting letter from Nanda Law Office; mortgage application, and mortgage statements from 2015.

48Despite Justice Finlayson’s October 31, 2024 warning that the Applicant had an obligation to value his assets, the Applicant has not done so and, as stated, his pleadings were struck on May 27, 2025.

49Section 5 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c F. 3, states:

When a divorce is granted or a marriage is declared a nullity, or when the spouses are separated and there is no reasonable prospect that they will resume cohabitation, the spouse whose net family property is the lesser of the two net family properties is entitled to one-half the difference between them.

50I have reviewed the draft Net Family Property statement prepared by the Respondent. I make a few comments with respect to some of the entries.

Sale of the Matrimonial Home

51There is $124,325 in the trust account from the sale of the matrimonial home. The Applicant has already received $28,000. The Respondent received $45,375. The Respondent received an extra $17,375 from those net sale proceeds.

Value of the Condominium

52The Respondent purchased a condominium on October 15, 2011 for $292,900 and it was registered in her name alone. At the time of purchase a mortgage in the amount of $253,321was registered. In 2014 another $30,000 mortgage was registered on title.

53I accept the valuation date appraisal of $290,000. The mortgage on the condominium as of the valuation date was $265,707.

Panago Pizza Franchise

54The Respondent, and her sister, purchased a pizza franchise, Panago Pizza, during the relationship. They owned it 51% Respondent and 49% (her sister). On the date of valuation there was $34,280 in the pizza account. Her share of the cash in the franchise was $17,482.89. The franchise commenced operation on December 22, 2015. The owners were losing $10,000 - $15,000 a month. The franchise was handed back to the franchisor on August 16, 2016. There was a deposit of $12,000 and damages of $8,000 or so that she shared with her sister and, accordingly, the Respondent received $10,000 back on the valuation date. The Respondent estimated her value of the franchise (which was purchased for $35,000) was about $17,000.

55The Respondent estimates that the value of the Applicant’s 17% share in Ishan General Trading Co. is based on the value of the assets in the Financial Statements on December 31, 2013. I accept this amount as the best evidence available to the court. This court recognizes that the Applicant did not value the company as required, that the company is in the United Arab Emirates and difficult or impossible to obtain compliance with disclosure based on the limited financial information available. This court accepts that the business is likely undervalued by only dividing the assets and there is likely some additional value as an ongoing business including goodwill. This court notes that there is no date of marriage value for the business. This court accepts the Applicant’s share of the business is in or about CDN $877,059.

56This court attaches the Net Family Property statement from which this court made the calculation.

Restraining Order

57Pursuant to section 46 of the Family Law Act, a court may make an order restraining a person from communicating with their former spouse or attending within a specified distance of one or more locations.

58The threshold question to determine if a restraining Order should be ordered is as follows: Does the Respondent have reasonable grounds to fear for her own safety or for the safety of any child in her lawful custody?

59The Respondent has had very little contact with the Applicant since separation. During the relationship the Applicant was abusive and threatening to the Respondent. Although there has been little communication between the parties the Respondent is of the view that the Applicant will be volatile given the striking of pleadings and the delivery of a final Order.

60The Respondent is so concerned for her safety that she has a 24/7 camera monitoring the home. The Respondent has also arranged for Janna to carry an air tag with her in case the Applicant takes her.

61The Respondent pays $12 monthly for an emergency key chain that, when pressed, results in the security attending immediately.

62I am satisfied, on the evidence before me, that the Respondent has reasonable grounds to fear for her own safety based on the history of violence set out in her affidavit and based on the steps she has taken to protect herself and Janna.

Post Separation Adjustments

63I am satisfied that the Applicant owes the Respondent post separation expenses in the amount of $5,219. These expenses consist of mortgage payments on the house while the Applicant was living there exclusively, as well as some debts.

Other

64At the commencement of the uncontested trial, the Respondent withdrew her claim for spousal support.

65The matrimonial home was sold and therefore, the exclusive possession claims are moot.

ORDER

1. This is a Final Order.
2. This Order is made pursuant to the Divorce Act and Family Law Act.
3. These Reasons are deemed to be an Order of the Court that are operative and enforceable without any need for a signed or entered, formal, typed Order.
4. The Divorce is severed from the corollary relief claims pursuant to Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules and may proceed on an uncontested basis.
5. Order to issue in accordance with the draft signed by me this day.
6. SDO to issue.
7. If the parties cannot agree on the issue of costs of the motion to strike and the trial, I shall consider the request for costs. The Respondent shall serve written submissions on the Applicant and file electronically, through the Trial Coordinator within 20 days of this decision being released. The Applicant shall serve written submissions on the Respondent and file electronically, through the Trial Coordinator’s office within 10 days following receipt of submissions from the party opposite. Submissions shall be limited to three pages exclusive of the Bill of Costs and Offers to Settle. There shall be no right of Reply. If any party fails to file submissions in accordance with the above timelines, they are not entitled to costs.

The Honourable Justice G.A. MacPherson

Footnotes

1. 1Section 17 of the Child Support Guidelines
2. 2Section 18 of the Child Support Guidelines
3. 3Section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines