CITATION: Shere v. Shere, 2026 ONSC 3255

COURT FILE NO.: FS-22-0174-00

DATE: 2026-06-03

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Kadambari Shere

G. Marchak, for the Applicant

Applicant

• and -

Basvaraj Shere

Self-Represented

Defendant/Respondent

HEARD: May 28, 2026

Madam Justice R.A. Lepere

Decision on Motion

Factual Background

1The 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.

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

3On 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.

4Pursuant 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. 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.

5The Respondent has been residing in India since October 2022.

6An interim order was made on April 20, 2023, granting sole decision making for the children to the Applicant.

7On 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.

8On March 5, 2025, an order was made by Wojciechowski J. requiring the parties to exchange updated Financial Statements within 30 days (the “March 2025 Order”). 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 dated March 5, 2025, rejected this position and ordered the Respondent to include assets owned in both India and Canada on the updated Financial Statement.

9While the Respondent delivered an updated Financial Statement, he did not include his assets in India.

10The Respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction as the issues between the parties are being litigated India, and he also sought an order releasing his accounts in Canada. That motion was heard before me on September 12, 2025.

11Further to my reasons dated September 22, 2025, I dismissed his motion. I stated the following at para. 19 of that decision:

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.

12At the return of the Respondent’s motion on September 12, 2025, the Applicant indicated that she intended to bring a contempt motion against the Respondent for failing to comply with the March 2025 Order. However, same had not been properly served or filed and did not proceed on that date.

13The Applicant has now brought the contempt motion back before the Court. That motion is before me today.

Issues before the Court

14Is the Respondent in contempt of the March 2025 Order?

15If yes, what orders shall be made against the Respondent?

Is the Respondent in Contempt of the March 5, 2025 Order?

16The Respondent admits that he has not provided an updated Financial Statement (Form 13.1) including all assets owned in India as per the March 2025 Order. He asserts that he is not required to comply with the March 2025 Order as the Ontario Court has no jurisdiction over the Indian assets and therefore, he should not have to disclose that information as part of the Ontario court proceedings. He further asserts that he is concerned about inconsistent decisions being made regarding the Indian assets in the two court proceedings.

17With that being said, I learned during the course of the motion that the Respondent had recently provided some information to the Applicant’s lawyer regarding the Indian assets. This information was not forthcoming from the Applicant’s lawyer during his submissions on the motion. It was not until during the Respondent’s submissions that I learned of same. In addressing this with the lawyer for the Applicant – and the fact that this should have been disclosed to me at the outset of the contempt motion – he indicated that there was reference in the correspondence from the Respondent attaching the documentation that it was being provided on a without prejudice basis, so he did not file it. The parties agreed that this information should be filed on this motion and the Applicant’s lawyer was directed to file same so I could review and consider that documentation in making the decision on this motion.

18I have now reviewed that documentation. The Respondent provided a copy of the Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities for Non-Agrarian Deponent dated January 13, 2026 that he filed in the Indian Courts as part of the family court proceedings in India. The document lists the assets that he owns in India but he removed the value of the assets. When asked why he removed this information, he gave the same reasons as set out earlier regarding his ongoing objection to the jurisdiction of this Court.

19While the Respondent has attempted to provide some information to the Applicant about his assets in India, he has still not complied with the March 2025 Order which requires him to complete an updated Form 13.1 including all Canadian and Indian assets. While the Affidavit filed in the India courts provides some of the information that would be contained in the Form 13.1, the information remains incomplete.

20The Applicant asserts that based on the evidence before the Court, it is clear that the Respondent is in contempt and seeks an order finding him in contempt. In terms of remedies, the Applicant asserts that an order requiring the Respondent to purge his contempt by a certain date would be sufficient at this time. If he does not comply, the Applicant intends to move to strike the Respondent’s pleadings in this action and proceed on an uncontested basis.

21The Respondent asserts that he is not contempt as he has not willfully disobeyed the March 2025 Order. While he has not complied, he has not done so because of the jurisdictional dispute he has raised. He further asserts that he has made attempts to comply and that the information provided is sufficient for the purposes of these proceedings.

22The Court of Appeal for Ontario, in Carter v. Carter, 2026 ONCA 29 (“Carter”), recently set out the substantive and procedural requirements applicable to contempt proceedings in family law proceedings.

23At para. 46 in Carter, the Court of Appeal stated the following:

The substantive requirements applicable to contempt proceedings in family law proceedings include the following:

(i) The order at issue must (a) state clearly and unequivocally what should or should not be done, with any ambiguity in the order being resolved in favour of the alleged contemnor; and (b) be an operative order at the time of the contempt hearing, in accordance with r. 31(1), which provides that an order “may be enforced” by a contempt motion: See generally Carey, at para. 33; Fiorito v. Wiggins, 2015 ONCA 729, 69 R.F.L. (7th) 5, at para. 17;

(ii) The alleged contemnor must have had actual knowledge of the order: Carey, at para. 34;

(iii) The alleged contemnor must have intentionally done the act that the order prohibits or intentionally failed to do the act that the order compels (but need not have intended to breach the court order): Carey, at paras. 35, 38;

(iv) Each of these elements must be proven on the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than on a balance of probabilities: Carey, at para. 32;

(v) Contempt is a discretionary enforcement measure of last rather than first resort and should not be routinely used to obtain compliance with court orders: Morasse v. Nadeau-Dubois, 2016 SCC 44, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 232, at paras. 20-21; Carey, at para. 36. The court may decline to impose a finding of contempt where it would work an injustice in the circumstances of the case, such as where less onerous remedies, such as a declaration that the party breached the order, would be sufficient. The exercise of discretion to decline to make a finding of contempt is particularly important in family law proceedings where contempt may inflame conflict and deflect the parties from less adversarial approaches that are more productive and conducive to the best interests of the children, which remain the paramount consideration. Absent an error of law, such discretionary determinations are generally entitled to deference on appeal: Moncur, at paras. 10, 17-20; Chong v. Donnelly, 2019 ONCA 799, 33 R.F.L. (8th) 19, at paras. 10-12.

24At para. 47 in Carter, the Court of Appeal set out the procedural requirements for a finding of contempt:

The relevant procedural requirements include:

(vi) The alleged contemnor must be given reasonable particulars of the alleged contempt in the notice of motion and/or supporting affidavit served in accordance with r. 31(2): Follows v. Follows (1998), 1998 CanLII 4629 (ON CA), 41 R.F.L. (4th) 248 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 3;

(vii) There is no prescribed procedure that must necessarily be followed in a contempt hearing, which will vary depending on the nature of the allegations and the matters in dispute. However, liability and penalty are discrete issues and should generally be considered in separate hearings so as to avoid unfairness and to provide the contemnor with the opportunity to purge their contempt before the penalty phase of the proceeding begins: College of Optometrists of Ontario v. SHS Optical Ltd., 2008 ONCA 685, 93 O.R. (3d) 139, at paras. 72 to 76, leave to appeal refused, [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 506; Boily, at para. 121;

(viii) The alleged contemnor has the right to retain and instruct counsel; to give or call evidence; and cannot be compelled to testify at the contempt hearing, in accordance with s. 11(c) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Kassay v. Kassay (2000), 2000 CanLII 22444 (ON SC), 11 R.F.L. (5th) 308 (Ont. S.C.); Sutherland Estate v. Murphy, 2025 ONCA 227, at para. 44, leave to appeal to S.C.C. requested, 41818;

(ix) Section 11(c) of the Charter only protects against testimonial compulsion and is prospective in its application. Thus, it does not reach back in time to protect statements or testimony offered before the contempt proceedings began, nor does it prevent the alleged contemnor from being required to produce pre-existing documents, statements or other tangible evidence: Sutherland, at paras. 48 to 50; and

(x) The proceedings are subject to and must satisfy the evidentiary requirements set out in r. 31(3).

25I will now discuss the substantive and procedural requirements for a finding of contempt.

Does the March 2025 Order state Clearly and Unequivoacally what Should be Done?

26The March 2025 Order states as follows:

PURSUANT TO THE FAMILY LAW ACT, THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Both parties are to complete, serve and file updated Form 13.1 Financial Statements within 30 days of this Settlement Conference.

27The endorsement of Wojciechowski J. dated March 5, 2025 states as follows:

Since the current state of financial disclosure is stale, both parties are ordered to complete, serve and file undated Form 13.1 Financial Statements within 30 days of this settlement conference. A lot of time was spent during the conference by the respondent expressing a desire to differentiate support and property issues in Canada from support and property issues in India, since there is both this proceeding and a parallel proceeding which has been commenced in India. While the respondent indicated several times that he wants the India properties to be dealt with by the courts of India, it was made very clear to him that the expectation of this Canadian court was that the updated Financial Statement he was going to file must include all assets and properties which are located in India in addition to Canadian assets and properties. The respondent was clearly advised that if he failed to include and list any India assets and properties in his updated Financial Statement, he could be held in contempt of court.

28In order for a finding of contempt to be made against the Respondent, the March 2025 Order must be clear and unequivocal as to what should be done.

29In Sweda Farms Ltd. (c.o.b. Best Choice Eggs) v. Ontario Egg Producers, 2011 ONSC 3650, at para. 21, Lauwers J. (as he then was) stated the following with respect to this first element:

It must be directive and not simply permissive. In terms of compliance, the alleged contemnor must have knowledge of the nature of the terms of the order, and, once having knowledge, must obey the order in letter and spirit with every diligence. A person who is subject to an order should not be permitted to "finesse" it or to "hide behind a restrictive and literal interpretation to circumvent the order and make a mockery of it and of the administration of justice.

30The March 2025 Order is clear and unequivocal in requiring the Respondent to deliver an updated Financial Statement (Form 13.1) including all assets and properties located in India and Canada.

Did the Respondent have Actual Knowledge of the March 2025 Order?

31I find that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the March 2025 Order. He was present at the Settlement Conference at which the Order was made. The endorsement from March 5, 2025 clearly states that the requirements to provide a Financial Statement that included all Canada and Indian assets was discussed with the Respondent at that conference.

32Furthermore, the Respondent has partially complied with the March 2025 Order by providing an updated Financial Statement, albeit not in full compliance. The Respondent in his evidence clearly accepts that he was aware of the March 2025 Order simply that he is not required to abide by same.

Did the Respondent Intentionally Fail to Comply with the March 2025 Order?

33With respect to this requirement, the moving party must prove that the alleged contemnor intentionally failed to do the act that the order compels but does not need to prove that the alleged contemnor intended to breach the court order: see Carter, at para. 46.

34While I understand the position of the Respondent, he raised the jurisdictional issue before Wojciechowski J. at the Settlement Conference on March 5, 2025. Wojciechowski J. rejected that position and ordered the Respondent to deliver the updated Financial Statement containing assets owned in both Canada and India.

35On this contempt motion, I am not in a position to address whether Wojciechowski J.’s decision was correct or whether the Respondent should be relieved of complying with same. I am only tasked with determining whether the Respondent is in contempt and with respect to this substantive requirement, whether he intentionally failed to comply with the March 2025 Order.

36I find that the Respondent has intentionally failed to comply with the March 2025 Order. He filed an updated Financial Statement containing his Canadian owned assets only. He refused to provide one that includes assets owned in India. The reason for not doing so, does not relieve him of his obligation to comply with the March 2025 Order. He could have appealed the decision of Wojciechowski J., but he did not.

Does the Evidence Show Contempt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

37In my view, when all of the above facts and circumstances are considered, the only reasonable and rational conclusion is that the Respondent acted in a deliberate manner to not comply with the March 2025 Order.

38I am satisfied that the Respondent’s willful and deliberate breach of the March 2025 Order has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Should Discretion be Exercised in this Case?

39While I appreciate that contempt is a discretionary enforcement measure and it should be used as a measure of last resort, I do not find that discretion should be exercised in this case.

40The Respondent has repeatedly stated that he does not intend to comply with the March 2025 Order. His recent attempt to provide some information about the Indian assets is incomplete and still non-compliant. He continues to assert a jurisdictional argument that was advanced and rejected at the time the March 2025 Order was made in defence of this motion.

Have the Procedural Requirements for a Finding of Contempt been Met?

41I find that the procedural requirements have been met in this case. The Respondent was given particulars of the alleged contempt in the materials filed by the Applicant. The Applicant agrees that the Respondent should be given an opportunity to purge his contempt before remedies are imposed. The Respondent filed evidence in response to the motion. The proceedings satisfy the evidentiary requirements set out in r. 31(3) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (the “Rules”).

42For the reasons stated above, I find that the Respondent is in contempt of the March 2025 Order.

What Remedy is the Applicant Entitled to?

43At this time, the Applicant is requesting that the Respondent be given a further period of time to purge his contempt prior to any other remedies being imposed.

44As such, I order that the Respondent shall have until June 30, 2026 to purge his contempt by delivering an updated Financial Statement (Form 13.1) to the Applicant, including all assets and properties owned by the Respondent in both Canada and India. The updated Financial Statement shall include all information required pursuant to the Rules.

45Should the Respondent fail to purge his contempt by June 30, 2026, the Applicant can move for additional remedies as against the Respondent further to the finding of contempt made against him.

Costs

46The Applicant seeks costs of this motion from the Respondent in the amount of $875.00, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

47The costs sought are reasonable in the circumstances. The motion was required due to the failure of the Respondent to comply with a court order. Costs are warranted in the circumstances.

48The Respondent shall pay the Applicant’s costs of this motion in the amount of $875.00, inclusive of HST and disbursements, forthwith.

The Hon. Madam Justice R.A. Lepere