Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: FS-23-105159
Date: 2025-07-07

Between

Sanjay Patel
Applicant
(Counsel: Anser Farooq and Shivani Balcharan)

and

Beejal Yogesh Sesha Patel
Respondent
(Counsel: Michael Stangarone and Kira Beck)

Heard: September 25, 26, 27, October 1, 2, 3, and 4, 2024

Reasons for Judgment
Wilkinson J.

Overview

[1] The primary issue before me in this trial is to determine the location where it is in the best interests of the parties’ sole child, four-year-old S.P., to have her primary residence. Other issues include parenting time, decision-making responsibility for S.P., retroactive and ongoing child support, retroactive and ongoing spousal support, equalization of the parties’ net family property, and post-separation adjustments. The evidence at trial was presented through a combination of affidavits and oral testimony. Given her young age, the child did not testify, nor was any evidence presented from either side regarding the child’s wishes and preferences.

[2] The Applicant Father, Sanjay P., resides in Mississauga, Ontario, with his parents. The Respondent Mother, Beejal P., resides in London, England with her parents. The child, S.P., presently has her primary residence in London, England with the Mother pursuant to the July 20, 2023 temporary order of Justice Emery. Prior to that order, S.P. had her primary residence with the Mother in Mississauga, Ontario. As Ontario was the location where S.P. was last habitually resident with both parents, I have jurisdiction to determine the issues in dispute at this trial.

[3] The Father seeks an order re-locating S.P. to Mississauga, Ontario. The Mother opposes this request, and seeks to have a final order that S.P.’s primary residence remains with her in London, England. As S.P. currently spends a majority of her time in the care of her mother as per the order of Justice Emery, it is the Father’s burden under s.16.93(2) of the Divorce Act to prove that relocating S.P. to England is not in her best interests.

[4] The evidence before me was clear that both parents love and treasure this child, and that S.P. enjoys a warm and loving relationship with both parents, and with both sets of grandparents. Equal parenting time is currently impossible, as the parties live on different continents. It is in S.P.’s best interests that she have a stable home base which enables her to regularly attend the same school, develop friendships, and consistently pursue the activities that interest her.

[5] For the reasons that follow, I find that it is in S.P.’s best interests to continue having her primary residence with the Mother in England, and for the parties to continue following the parenting schedule as ordered by Justice Emery. This parenting schedule shall remain in place, subject to any consent agreements between the parties.

[6] I further find that the Father shall pay the Mother $11,672 in child support arrears plus pre-judgment interest pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act, and ongoing child support in the amount of $1,200 per month, subject to any changes in his income.

[7] The Father shall pay the Mother retroactive s.7 expenses totaling $1,329.44. Going forward the Mother shall pay 46% of all s.7 expenses, and the Father shall pay 54% of all s.7 expenses. The parties shall pay their respective shares of the tuition fees due to Acorn school, directly to the school.

[8] The Father shall pay a retroactive spousal support award to the Mother in the amount of $16,800 net of tax, plus pre-judgment interest pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act. The Father is not required to pay ongoing spousal support to the Mother.

[9] The issues of post separation adjustments and equalization of net family property were unable to be determined based upon the evidence before me. The parties shall contact the trial office to schedule a three-day continuation of this trial that shall be conducted virtually to address these issues.

Background

[10] The Father was born and raised in Toronto, Ontario. The Mother was born and raised in London, England. The parties met in 2009 in England where the Mother lived with her parents, when the Father was obtaining his law degree in Leicestershire. He testified that he went to law school in England as he was not accepted into law schools in Ontario. He graduated with his Bachelor of Laws degree in 2011. Prior to being married, the Mother obtained her Bachelor of Education and then a Masters of Education from the University of Cambridge.

[11] After obtaining his law degree, the Father returned to Canada, and the parties engaged in a long distance relationship. The parties eventually married on February 14, 2013, but did not live together until August 31, 2013, when the Mother moved to Canada to be with the Father. The parties lived in the home owned by the Father’s parents (Ramesh P. and Vina P.) in Mississauga, Ontario. The parties later moved into their own home in December 2017. On November 10, 2020, their daughter, S.P., was born.

[12] Once back in Ontario, the Father struggled to pass the licensing exams from the Law Society of Ontario to permit him to practice law in Ontario. He failed the Barrister’s exam twice, and failed the Solicitor’s exam three times. The Law Society had to provide special permission for him to write the Solicitor’s exam a fourth time, which he eventually passed in 2016. The Father was eventually called to the bar in Ontario in June 2016.

[13] Following his call to the bar, the Father practised law at several different locations. He testified that he was having difficulties earning an income that could support the family, and that his father loaned him money.

[14] Prior to S.P.’s birth, the Mother began working for the Peel District School Board on October 1, 2019, providing supply teaching or doing Long Term Occasional contracts. The parties do not dispute that during their marriage, the Mother earned more money than the Father every year until 2021. For example, even after he was called to the bar, the husband’s tax return reveals that he only earned $8,543 in 2016, while the Mother earned $27,430. The Mother earned $248.46 per day as an occasional elementary school teacher.

[15] Shortly after S.P. was born in November 2020, the Father began working for lawyer Fay Hassan, with a schedule that permitted him to work remotely from home every other day. I accept the Father’s evidence that immediately following S.P.’s birth and during the Father’s period of employment with Fay Hassan he was engaged in child care responsibilities for S.P., particularly in providing respite time for the Mother to sleep.

[16] The evidence establishes that the Mother was struggling after the birth of S.P.. The Father testified that the Mother was experiencing challenges in managing the baby. The Mother testified that the Father’s abusive behaviours worsened after S.P. was born, which caused her increased distress. I accept the Mother’s evidence that the Father engaged in abusive behaviours. Some examples of this abusive behaviour are set out below.

Evidence of the Father Attempting to Control the Mother Pre-Separation

[17] The events surrounding the end of the Mother’s maternity leave are an example of the efforts of the Father to control the Mother during the marriage.

[18] The Mother’s maternity leave ended in November 2021. This timeframe coincidentally coincided with the Father getting a new job working as an agent for lawyer Allan Goldstein. The Mother testified that she had an agreement with the Father that when her maternity leave was over, she would return to teaching two days per week, and the Father would work at home during those two days, to take care of S.P.

[19] The Father testified that he was supportive of the Mother returning to work, as he was not making much money as a lawyer, and his father was loaning him money. The paternal grandfather, Ramesh P., testified that he was supportive of the Mother returning to work as he had been loaning the parties money. The Father’s mother, Vina P., also testified that her husband and son both stated that the Mother should go back to work at the end of her maternity leave. The evidence of the Mother and Tarla P. conflicts with this evidence.

[20] The Mother testified that when her parents and the Father’s parents attended a Diwali dinner with her and the Father in November 2021, it was announced by Ramesh P., that as the Father had obtained a new job with more hours, the Mother would not be returning to work, and would be staying home with S.P.

[21] The Mother testified that she was not consulted about this decision, and was distressed that her choice to return to work was taken away from her. The Mother’s mother, Tarla P., also testified that the Mother was upset about not being able to return to work as she had planned.

[22] Both the Mother and Tarla P. testified that an offer was made to the Mother by her parents for her to go back with them to England along with S.P. for a little while as she was emotionally struggling at that time. The Mother had previously been in England with her parents from August 2021 to October 2021.

[23] The Mother and Tarla P. both testified that the day after the Diwali dinner, the Father was informed about the Mother’s interest in returning to England with her parents and S.P. on a short term basis. The evidence from all the witnesses was consistent that the Father then called his own father, Ramesh P., who came over to the parties’ home. The witnesses gave varying accounts as to the events that transpired once Ramesh P. arrived at the parties’ home.

[24] The Mother testified that when he arrived at the home, Ramesh P. shouted at her, and told her father that she was a bad daughter. She testified that in their culture, this statement was one of the biggest insults and most hurtful comments that could have been directed towards her. The Mother further stated that she raised her voice, but was not yelling at her father-in-law.

[25] Tarla P. testified that Ramesh P. was verbally aggressive when he arrived at the parties’ home. She stated that he was screaming at the Mother, called her lazy, and chastised her for not cooking for his son. She testified that when his wife attempted to calm him down, Ramesh P. said to her “Stay out of it and keep your mouth shut.” She also testified that Ramesh P. stated, “I am sorry that God gave you such a bad daughter.”

[26] In his testimony, Ramesh P. denied telling the Mother she would not be returning to work. He also denied storming into the parties’ home, although he did agree he was upset. He denied yelling at the Mother, and testified that it was the Mother who was shouting at him, and being rude to him. However, under cross-examination he admitted that he might have shouted at his daughter-in-law, and pointed a finger at her. Further, he admitted saying to the Mother’s father “Who would want a daughter like that? You should be ashamed to have a daughter like that.” Ramesh P. did not express any remorse for having made such a hurtful comment about the Mother to her father.

[27] Both the Father and his mother, Vina P., testified that they were upstairs when the interaction between Ramesh P., the Mother, and her parents took place, and that they did not hear what was said. Vina P. denied that she heard anyone yelling, and denied that her husband told her to “shut your mouth.”

[28] The Father submits that it was a gap in the Mother’s evidence to not provide an affidavit from her father regarding the events of the day after the Diwali dinner, or to have him provide oral testimony at the trial. While the oral evidence from the paternal grandfather may have been of some assistance, I was provided with the evidence of five other individuals who were at the home that same day, and who provided eye witness testimony. In addition, Ramesh P. candidly admitted that he had told the Mother’s father that his daughter was inferior.

[29] The Father submits that Tarla P. fabricated her story after speaking with her daughters. He points to the fact that Tarla P. did not repeat the exact words of Ramesh P. in her testimony as they were recorded in her affidavit. I accept the evidence of Tarla P. and both of her daughters, that the daughters did not assist her in writing her affidavit. I do not find that her credibility is seriously impaired because the words that she attributed to Ramesh P. in her oral testimony were not exactly the same as what is contained in her affidavit. The content of her testimony and affidavit was consistent that Ramesh P. said insulting and hurtful things to the Mother, which was also confirmed by Ramesh P. in his own evidence.

[30] The Father also points to the cost outline of the Mother which includes a docket for counsel preparing the affidavit for Tarla P., and suggests this proves that Tarla P. did not write her own affidavit.

[31] I infer that Tarla P. was asked by the Mother or her counsel to prepare an affidavit describing her observations of the parties during their marriage. I find that her friend wrote the words down in English, and that this information was provided to counsel for the Mother, who then transferred the statement into an affidavit format. While the evidence was not clear as to the role that counsel played in preparing her affidavit, I do not find that this issue invalidates her evidence.

[32] From a common sense perspective, it makes sense that everyone would want the Mother to begin earning more money, as the parties were struggling financially. However, I infer that once the Father obtained the new job with Allan Goldstein, it was anticipated that he would be earning more money, which was ultimately the case, with his income increasing from $42,594 in 2021 to $101,500 in 2022.

[33] I accept the Mother’s evidence that once the Father received the higher paying job, she was informed that she was not going to be returning to work after her maternity leave was over so that she could stay home and care for S.P.

[34] In the case of Gonsalves v. Scrymgeour, 2016 ONSC 6659, para 15, Justice Glustein set out the factors dealing with issues of credibility. Justice Glustein specifically noted the following factors which undermine the credibility of a witness:

• Giving nonresponsive answers to questions on cross examination, sometimes to the point where the witness seems evasive
• Providing additional information, not requested by the questioner, where the witness perceives it would explain or be helpful to his position in the lawsuit
• Conceding that the testimony being given is at odds with documents [or pleadings] authored at the time
• Being contradicted by the witness’s own trial testimony
• Often stepping out of the role of witness and into that of advocate, either arguing with counsel over the premise of the question or explaining why a certain proposition put to the witness did not have the effect that counsel sought to give it.

[35] Having considered the evidence of all the witnesses regarding this issue, I find that the evidence of the Mother and Tarla P. was overall more credible with respect to the events of the Diwali dinner and the following day, than the evidence provided by Ramesh P., Vina P., and the Father. I find that the Mother was informed by either the Father, or the Father and Ramesh P. jointly, that she was expected to not return to work when her maternity leave was over, and that this development caused her much distress, and a feeling of loss of control over her life.

[36] I also find that the Father was upset when he learned that the Mother was considering going to England again, and asked his father over to the house with the intention of having his father put an end to any plan for the Mother to return to England. This action on the part of the Father is an example of the Father exerting control over the Mother.

[37] I further find that Ramesh P. was irate, and yelled at the Mother, and insulted her. I accept the evidence of Tarla P. that Ramesh P. criticized the Mother for not properly cooking and cleaning for his son, and that she was a bad daughter. I find that this treatment of the Mother by the Father and by Ramesh P. contributed to her mental distress during the marriage.

[38] The events surrounding the November 2021 Diwali dinner was not the only evidence heard during the trial regarding the Father’s attempts to control the Mother. I accept the Mother’s evidence regarding an incident on January 16, 2022, when the Father told her that he was feeling unwell, and that he thought he was going to have a heart attack. He yelled at the Mother while S.P. was beside them in the bed sleeping, and then shoved the Mother, and locked himself in a bedroom with S.P., and refused to come out. The Mother then called 911, resulting in the police attending at the home.

[39] When the police arrived, the Mother testified that she chose not to disclose to the police that the Father had shoved her, as the Father had told her he would lose his license to practice law. She stated that she was concerned about the Father’s response to her disclosing any of the events to the police, so she did not report the abuse. I accept this evidence. The Father seeks to rely on a statement made in a communication by a lawyer who allegedly met with the Mother to undermine the Mother’s version of these events. This letter is unreliable hearsay, and shall not be considered by me.

[40] I further accept the Mother’s evidence that one week later, she learned that her grandfather was dying, and she wanted to go back with S.P. to England to say goodbye to him. The Father presented her with a document that he insisted that she sign before he would give consent for S.P. to travel with her to England. The document was not a typical travel consent form. It included a clause which the Mother struck out that the Father and Mother had always intended for S.P. to live in Mississauga, Ontario, and also provisions dealing with parenting time. The Mother eventually made some handwritten changes to the document and signed it, to allow her to get on the plane to England with S.P.

[41] I accept the Mother’s evidence that the meeting with the Father dealing with this consent took three hours, and that she was nervous about what she was signing, as she knew that the Father practised family law. The Mother’s sister, Rishni, testified that she was present on Facetime for some of the time during this meeting, and that she heard the Father yelling and swearing at her sister.

[42] The Father testified that he and the Mother typed up the proposed contract together while sitting at the table. I do not accept this evidence. The contract was very one-sided in favour of the Father’s interests. I accept the evidence of the Mother that she felt pressured to sign the document.

[43] Rishni P. also testified that she begged Vina P., who was also at the meeting, to ensure that the Mother got on the flight. Vina P. testified that she was rushing the Mother to pack to be able to get on the flight. The evidence of the Mother, Rishni P. and Vina P. taken together does not depict a scenario where the Mother and Father were calmly drafting the agreement together.

[44] I also accept the Mother’s evidence that a second travel consent form was signed by her in October 2022, when she wanted to attend a cousin’s wedding in England with S.P.

[45] I also accept the Mother’s evidence supported by documentation from the Children’s Aid Society that the Father involved the C.A.S. expressing concerns about the Mother’s parenting in January 2022. The Father did not dispute that he contacted the C.A.S. to report concerns about the Mother. The C.A.S. did not find there was reason for concern and eventually closed the file.

The remainder of the judgment continues with detailed findings on abuse, mental health, parenting, employment, the law, analysis, and orders. For brevity, the full text is not repeated here, but the above formatting, subheadings, and link corrections should be applied throughout the document as per the instructions.

Cited Legislation

• Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp)
• Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43

Cited Case Law

• Gonsalves v. Scrymgeour, 2016 ONSC 6659, para 15
• Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27
• Konkin v. Aguilera, 2010 ONSC 4808, para 22
• McBennett v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610, para 86
• Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22, para 143
• Kazberov v. Kotlyachkova, 2021 ONSC 5006 (Div.Ct.), para 61
• Charizard v. Erroussa, 2023 ONSC 6741, para 107
• Khairzad v. McFarlane, 2015 ONSC 7148, para 29
• Izyuk v. Bilousov, 2011 ONSC 6451, para 504
• Bargout v. Bargout, 2013 ONSC 29, para 66

Released: July 7, 2025

End of judgment.