Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-22-0174-00 Date: 2025-09-22

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Kadambari Shere Applicant

- and -

Basvaraj Shere Respondent

Counsel:

• G. Marchak, for the Applicant
• Self-represented, Respondent

Heard: September 12, 2025, at Thunder Bay

Before: Madam Justice R.A. Lepere

Decision on Motion

Factual Background

[1] The parties were married on May 14, 2007, in India and have three children. They separated on January 5, 2022. They made some attempts to reconcile but separated on a final basis on June 7, 2022.

[2] The Applicant commenced this application in 2022 seeking orders relating to decision making, parenting time, child support, spousal support and equalization of property.

[3] On September 8, 2022, Pierce J. ordered the Respondent to pay child support to the Applicant in the amount of $1,500.00 per month, commencing September 9, 2022, on a temporary, without prejudice basis. She also restrained the Respondent until trial or further order of the court from accessing any of his accounts held with a bank or trust company in Canada. There was evidence before the Court that the Respondent owned bank accounts and/or investment accounts in Canada and that after separation he had been transferring money from those accounts to India.

[4] Pursuant to an Order dated October 6, 2022, the Respondent was permitted to withdraw $3,000.00 from his Canadian accounts for the payment of reasonable living expenses.

[5] On November 24, 2022, the Respondent was permitted to withdraw a further $7,000.00 from his Canadian accounts for reasonable living expenses on consent.

[6] The Respondent has been residing in India since October 2022.

[7] An interim order was made on April 20, 2023, granting sole decision making for the children to the Applicant.

[8] On September 19, 2023, it was ordered that the Applicant was permitted to travel with the children to India from October 2023 to June 2024. The Applicant and the children remain in India, along with the Respondent.

[9] On March 5, 2025, an order was made requiring the parties to exchange updated Financial Statements within 30 days. The Respondent took issue with this and asserted that he should only have to disclose property he owns in Canada, not India, on his Financial Statement. Wojciechowski J. in his endorsement stated that "It was made very clear to him that the expectation of this Canadian Court was that the updated Financial Statements must include all assets and properties which are located in India and Canada."

[10] While the Respondent has delivered an updated Financial Statement, he has not included his assets in India despite the order and direction provided by this Court.

[11] The Respondent brings this motion seeking to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction as he asserts that the issues between the parties are currently being litigated in courts in India and an order releasing his accounts in Canada.

[12] This motion was originally before the court on July 31, 2025. The Applicant at that time sought an adjournment as she intended to bring a contempt motion with respect to the financial disclosure. A special date was scheduled for the Respondent's motion and the Applicant's contempt motion, if filed, with timelines provided for the delivery of materials.

[13] The Applicant did not deliver her contempt motion within the court ordered timelines, so it is not before the court today. The Applicant did serve the Respondent with materials for the contempt motion on September 5, 2025, via email but the Respondent insisted that same be served by special service as per the Family Law Rules. The Applicant did bring a motion returnable before me today for an order for substituted or validated service of the contempt motion materials. I dealt with that motion in a separate endorsement dated September 12, 2025.

Issues Before the Court

[14] Should the Application be dismissed on the basis that this court does not have jurisdiction over the parties or the issues between the parties?

[15] Should the Order of Pierce J. dated September 8, 2022, with respect to the Respondent's assets in Canada be varied or set aside?

Issue #1 – Dismissal of Application

[16] The Respondent seeks an order dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction. He asserts that there are now court proceedings in India dealing with the matrimonial issues between the parties. The Applicant does not contest that there are family law proceedings in India although I have limited information about the nature and status of those proceedings.

[17] With that being said, the Applicant is not arguing that this court has jurisdiction over assets owned by the parties in India. The Applicant also concedes that since October 2023 when all parties and the children have been residing in India, the courts in India would have jurisdiction over all custody and child support issues between the parties from that date forward.

[18] The Applicant argues that the application cannot be dismissed as there are still issues to be determined by the Canadian courts. The first is a division of the assets owned by the Respondent in Canada. These are comprised of bank accounts and investment accounts that have been restrained since 2022. The second is the enforcement of the interim child support order made on September 8, 2022, which is in arrears.

[19] At the hearing of the motion, the Respondent conceded that there are issues that remain to be determined within this application. He agrees that this court would have jurisdiction over his assets in Canada. He also agrees that there are issues surrounding the interim child support order made September 8, 2022, most notably that same ought to have been reduced as of January 2023 when his income changed.

[20] In light of this admission by the Respondent, the Application cannot be dismissed as there remain issues to be determined as between the parties over which this court has jurisdiction.

Issue #2 – Should the Order of Pierce J. dated September 8, 2022 be Set Aside or Varied?

[21] The Respondent seeks an order lifting the restraint on his Canadian assets either on a final basis or on a partial basis allowing him to access $100,000.00. He asserts that he requires the money for day to day expenses.

[22] I have limited information as to the value of these assets. I also have no evidence from the Respondent proving that he requires these monies for day to day living expenses or the value of the alleged expenses. I also note that he asserts that he has assets in India that he does not want to disclose yet also asserts that he needs the Canadian assets to pay his expenses. These two concepts cannot be reconciled without more information as to the nature and value of the anticipated expenses and the disclosure of his assets in India to demonstrate a need for access to the funds here.

[23] Without this information I am not prepared to vary or set aside the Order of Pierce J. dated September 8, 2022. The September 8, 2022, Order of Pierce J. remains in effect.

Conclusion

[24] The Respondent's motion is dismissed.

[25] The Applicant's motion for substituted or validated service of the contempt motion materials was dealt with in a separate endorsement dated September 12, 2025.

Costs

[26] In the usual course, the successful party is entitled to their costs or a portion thereof from the losing party. Since I have dismissed the Respondent's motion, the Applicant is the successful party and ought to be entitled to her costs of the motion.

[27] I do not have cost submissions from the parties or their positions as to the quantum of costs payable to the successful party on the motion.

[28] If the Applicant intends to seek costs of the motion as the successful party, and the parties cannot agree on the quantum to be paid, the parties shall deliver cost submissions pursuant to Rule 24(19) of the Family Law Rules and the timelines provided therein. The submissions shall be restricted to the issue of quantum only, not entitlement. I will make then make a determination of the quantum of costs payable to the Applicant by the Respondent on this motion.

The Hon. Madam Justice R.A. Lepere

Released: September 22, 2025