Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-25-1609 Date: 2025-09-16

Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Abdul Majid Ahmed v. Tasneem Kauser

Before: The Honourable Justice Kaufman

Counsel:

• Javairia Junaid, for the Applicant
• Abayomi Okubote and Damilola Quadri, for the Respondent

E N D O R S E M E N T

1On September 10, 2025, Justice Doyle determined that this motion was urgent under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, and ordered it to be heard before a case conference.

2The applicant seeks an order requiring the return of the parties' children to Ottawa and prohibiting the respondent from removing the children from Canada. The respondent requests that this application be stayed in favour of proceedings she commenced in Brampton prior to this application.

Background

3The applicant resides in Ottawa, Ontario. The parties were married in Pakistan on June 25, 2023. Their first child, Inaya, was born in Pakistan on May 1, 2024.

4The applicant sponsored the respondent's immigration to Canada, and the respondent arrived in Ottawa on June 9, 2025. At the time of her arrival, the respondent was pregnant with the parties' second child.

5In Ottawa, the parties resided at the applicant's parents' residence. On July 2, 2025, 23 days after her arrival, the respondent reported to the police that the applicant assaulted and choked her. The applicant was 35 weeks pregnant at the time of the alleged assaults. The applicant was charged criminally and is subject to an undertaking prohibiting direct or indirect communication with the respondent and requiring him to stay at least 250 metres away from her.

6On the same day, July 2, 2025, the respondent relocated with Inaya to Mississauga, Ontario. The respondent states that, as she was living at the applicant's family's residence and the applicant's release conditions prevented him from being near her, she had no option but to leave. She further states that Mississauga was the only place where she could secure accommodation.

7On July 28, 2025, the respondent gave birth to the parties' second child, Arhmad.

Application Commenced in Brampton

8On August 27, 2025, the respondent commenced a family law application in the Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton, Ontario, seeking spousal and child support. Due to her status as a recent immigrant, the respondent required a court order to file the application without her last three notices of assessment, which delayed service of the Brampton application.

9The applicant commenced this application in Ottawa on September 3, 2025.

Position of the Parties

10The applicant argues that the parties and their children were habitually resident in Ottawa, and the children should be returned to Ottawa. He contends that the respondent unilaterally removed the children without complying with the relocation notice provisions under the Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12. He further submits that the children's support network is in Ottawa.

11Additionally, the applicant argues there is a grave risk that the respondent may remove the children to Pakistan. He notes that the respondent has minimal ties to Canada, her family resides in Pakistan, and both she and Inaya hold Pakistani passports. He emphasizes that Pakistan is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

12The respondent submits that she was compelled to relocate to Mississauga due to the applicant's alleged criminal conduct and in the best interests of the children. She states that she has been the children's primary caregiver at all times. She argues that determining habitual residence requires a fact-specific inquiry and that the children are habitually resident in Mississauga, where they have stability, community support, and where she can meet their daily needs.

13The respondent denies any intention to relocate to Pakistan. At the hearing, she agreed to provide her passport and her National Identity Card for Overseas Pakistanis (NICOP), which allows entry to Pakistan without a passport, to her counsel. Her counsel has undertaken to safeguard these documents until further court order or agreement between the parties.

14The respondent urges the court to stay this application in favour of the Brampton proceeding, which was commenced first.

Analysis

15Under Rule 5(1) of the Family Law Rules, a family law application must be commenced in the municipality where the child is habitually resident, subject to section 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA). Section 22(2) of the CLRA defines habitual residence as the place where the child last resided in one of the following circumstances: (a) with both parents; (b) with one parent under an agreement, consent, acquiescence, or court order; or (c) with a person other than a parent on a permanent basis for a significant period. Section 22(3) clarifies that habitual residence cannot be altered by the removal or withholding of a child without the consent of all persons with decision-making responsibility, unless there has been acquiescence or undue delay in commencing proceedings.

16Applying this definition, Inaya's habitual residence is Ottawa. She resided in Ottawa with both parents from June 9, 2025, to July 2, 2025 (23 days). Although Inaya has since resided in Mississauga for 76 days as of the date of this hearing, the unilateral relocation by the respondent, without the applicant's consent or a court order, does not alter Inaya's habitual residence under section 22(3).

17However, Arhmad's habitual residence is Mississauga. He was born on July 28, 2025, and has resided in Mississauga with the respondent, his primary caregiver, since birth. He has never lived in Ottawa.

18Consequently, Rule 5(1) permits the applicant to commence this application in Ottawa for Inaya and the respondent to commence her application in Brampton for Arhmad. However, allowing two applications dealing with overlapping issues to proceed concurrently in different jurisdictions results in a multiplicity of proceedings, which could lead to inconsistent judgments, increased costs, and delays.

19Where two courts have concurrent jurisdiction over related matters, the court where the proceeding was first commenced should generally take precedence to avoid duplication and promote judicial efficiency. Here, the respondent's Brampton application, filed on August 27, 2025, predates the applicant's Ottawa application, filed on September 3, 2025. The respondent may claim the return of the children to Ottawa in the Brampton application.

20The court has also considered the applicant's concern about the risk of the children being removed to Pakistan. The respondent's agreement to surrender her passport and NICOP card to her counsel, with counsel's undertaking to safeguard these documents, adequately mitigates this risk pending further court order or agreement.

Disposition

21This application is stayed in favour of the proceeding commenced in Brampton on August 27, 2025.