Mehta v. Shah, 2026 ONSC 4313

Court File and Parties

CITATION: Mehta v. Shah, 2026 ONSC 4313 COURT FILE NO.: FS-25-0078-0000 DATE: 2026-07-20

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Anand Ashok Mehta, Applicant AND: Nidhi Kishor Shah, Respondent

BEFORE: Conlan J.

COUNSEL: K. Younie, for the Applicant Nidhi Kishor Shah, Self-Represented

HEARD: In Chambers, July 20, 2026

ENDORSEMENT

1On 29 June 2026, this Court made a Final Order ("Final Order") which, among other things, granted to the Applicant father, Anand Ashok Mehta ("Father"), final and sole decision-making responsibility for each of the two children, Prayushi Anand Mehta and Prathvee Anand Mehta, each born on 27 December 2021 (the "Children"). Further, this Court ordered that the parenting time to be exercised by the Respondent mother, Nidhi Kishor Shah ("Mother"), if any, shall be at the sole discretion of the Father.

2In my view, that Final Order was clearly in the best interests of the Children, for the following reasons.

3First, the Mother was found by this Court to be in contempt of court. In direct violation of a court order made by Justice Yamashita of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Mother unlawfully retained the Children in India. With respect, any honourable judge in India who may be called upon to review this matter should read this Court's Endorsement made on April 14, 2026, finding the Mother in contempt of court.

4Second, in addition to having unlawfully retained the Children in India, the Mother has engaged in a destructive campaign to terminate any relationship between the Children and the Father, frustrating all efforts by the Father to have any long-distance contact with the Children while he is in Canada and the Children are in India.

5Third, the Mother has made the deliberate decision to not participate any further in the Ontario court proceeding, despite having done so at the time that Justice Yamashita made the decision that the Mother is in contempt of.

6Fourth, the Mother, to this day, weeks after the Final Order was made, remains in contempt of court.

7In making the Final Order, this Court had to consider only the best interests of the Children: section 24(1) of the Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, as amended (the "CLRA").

8Further, this Court, while taking into account all of the factors outlined in section 24(3) of the CLRA, had to give primary consideration to the Children's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being: section 24(2) of the CLRA.

9In the opinion of this Court, it was clear that it was contrary to the safety, security and well-being of the Children to be unlawfully retained in India and in the care of a contemnor who will not support the maintenance of any relationship between the children and the Father. In that regard, paragraphs (c) and (i) under section 24(3) of the CLRA weighed heavily in favour of this Court's determination that the Final Order was indeed in the best interests of the Children.

10On the uncontested trial evidence of the Father that was before this Court, there was nothing that suggested that a single factor enumerated in section 24(3) of the CLRA, including but not limited to the consideration of family violence under paragraph (j), ran against the Final Order being made. In other words, it was clear to this Court that a consideration of all of the factors enumerated in section 24(3) meant that it was in the best interests of the Children for the Father to have sole and final decision-making responsibility for them.

11It is most regrettable that the Mother has evidently chosen to forum-shop – to unlawfully retain the Children in India and to abandon the lawful jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in an effort to try to get a better result from a court in India. Such a parent, in my opinion, is not acting in the best interests of the Children. Such a result, if condoned, in my view, would be contrary to the best interests of the Children.

Conlan J.