Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Anand Ashok Mehta, Applicant AND: Nidhi Kishor Shah, Respondent
BEFORE: Conlan J.
COUNSEL: Mr. K. Younie, for the Applicant Nidhi Kishor Shah, Self-Represented Not present
HEARD: April 14, 2026
ENDORSEMENT on contempt motion
1The Applicant father (“Father”) moves for a finding that the Respondent mother (“Mother”) is in contempt of court. Despite being personally served with all of the motion materials more than two weeks ago, on March 27th, the Mother, who is in India, did not respond in any way. She did not contact the Father or his counsel. She did not contact the court administration or the trial office. She did not serve anything. Nor did she file anything or upload anything to Case Center. And she did not appear at court either virtually or in-person. She obviously decided to take her chances.
2The Mother is found in contempt of court.
3The Mother is ordered to pay to the Father his full recovery costs in the total amount of $9,000.00, which sum shall be paid forthwith. The Mother is hereby found to be in default such that the Father may proceed to an uncontested trial. That uncontested trial shall proceed in writing and shall be treated by the trial office as an urgent basket motion once it has been filed. Finally, the financial penalty requested by the Father, outlined at paragraph 11 of his affidavit in support of the contempt motion – that is, $100.00 per day for each day that the Mother remains a contemnor, is ordered by this Court.
4I will review the draft order to be filed, without delay, by counsel for the Father.
5Frankly, this Court, if left to its own devices unrestrained by the cautionary approach taken by the Father, an approach that I understand because the Father still has to deal with the Mother and the court system in India, would have issued a warrant to bring the Mother to court and have her explain why she should not be imprisoned for what can only be described as being a brazen, extremely serious, and long-standing contempt of the authority of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, contrary to the best interests of the two children, both of whom are under five years of age.
6In my view, a parent who knowingly retains a child in a foreign country in direct violation of an unequivocal court order that the said child be returned to the jurisdiction where the child has been found to be habitually resident is one of the foulest contemnors imaginable in family law. That is what has occurred here.
7The family took a trip abroad to India. The Father returned on his own, with the common understanding that the Mother and the children would come back afterwards. They did not do so. The Father brought an urgent motion which was heard by my colleague, Justice Yamashita. The Mother participated in that motion, and filed materials, and had her own counsel. The Mother lost that motion. Her position on jurisdiction was strongly rejected by Yamashita J. It was ordered, among other things, that the “children shall be returned to Ontario on or before November 30, 2025…”. The urgent motion was heard on November 10th; the Final Order was made on November 13th; November 30th came and went; it is now more than four months past the court-ordered deadline; the Mother and the children are still in India.
8Circumstances such as these would normally call for the sharpest consequence available. Given the Father’s tempered position, however, a different order has been made.
9The said Final Order made by Justice Yamashita could not have been any clearer or more unequivocal. That the Mother knows about the said Final Order is beyond dispute. That the Mother has simply elected, with deliberation and voluntarily, to disobey the said Final Order and to try to get a better result in India, which attempt has failed miserably thus far, is the only conclusion that could reasonably be drawn. The three criteria for a finding of contempt have, therefore, been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Carey v. Laiken, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 79, 2015 SCC 17 (S.C.C.); Chong v. Donnelly, [2019] O.J. No. 5048, 2019 ONCA 799 (Ont. C.A.). Finally, to exercise this Court’s discretion and decline to make the finding of contempt would not be in the best interests of these two very young children. To do so would effectively have this Court show complicity with what is, in essence, a kidnapping. Not only has the Mother unlawfully retained the children in India but she has also repeatedly frustrated all efforts made by the Father to have any long-distance contact with them.
10These are the reasons why this Court granted the Father’s contempt motion.
Conlan J.
Date: April 14, 2026