CITATION: Kumar v Sood, 2026 ONSC 489
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Opinder Kumar, Applicant
AND:
Harpeet Sood, Respondent
BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Pazaratz
COUNSEL: Applicant, Self-Represented
Respondent, Self-Represented
HEARD: January 23, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
1When you’re here, you’re here.
2It’s not just a “When in Rome...” thing.
3When you decide to become a Canadian, you can’t dredge up laws from your country of origin, whenever it suits you.
4And sadly, there’s nothing a Canadian court can do to remedy unrequited love.
5On July 10, 2025 the Applicant husband commenced a “Simple (Divorce Only)” Application in Hamilton where both parties reside. He represents himself. His Application includes the following information:
a. The parties were married September 29, 2014 in India.
b. They separated April 19, 2025 in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
c. The legal basis for the divorce is marriage breakdown pursuant to section 8(2) of the Divorce Act. The parties were living separate and apart when the proceeding was commenced. The husband asks that a divorce be granted once the parties have remained separate and apart for at least one year. There is no possibility of reconciliation.
d. There are no children.
e. Neither party had been previously divorced.
f. Both parties were habitually resident in Ontario for at least one year immediately prior to the application being filed.
g. The husband seeks only a divorce. There is no claim for costs or anything else.
6The wife was served with the Divorce Application July 14, 2025, here in Hamilton. She has never filed an Answer.
7Instead, representing herself, September 18, 2025 she brought this motion which requests:
“Application to dismiss or stay court file number (720/25) ... in the light of principle of forum non conveniens.”
8The wife’s September 18, 2025 affidavit includes the following narrative:
a. She admits the content of the husband’s application is correct.
b. Their marriage was solemnized in India under Hindu law.
c. The marriage was the result of a conspiracy by the husband to reach Canada through the wife.
d. Her affidavit goes into great detail about treachery, misrepresentation and selfishness on the part of the husband and his family.
e. The marriage was consummated.
f. In 2016 the wife moved to Canada. The husband and his family harassed her for money.
g. The wife sponsored the husband to come to Canada. Upon arrival he started harassing and mistreating her.
h. When the wife wanted to return to India to visit her sick father, the husband assaulted her and she sustained multiple injuries. She called police but he wasn’t charged.
i. In May 2025 and again in August 2025 the husband and his parents commenced legal actions against the wife in India “on basis of wrong and false facts.” (sic)
j. In India, the wife has filed “a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act”.
k. The parties are governed by Hindu law and their marriage was solemnized in India. Their marriage can only be dissolved per the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
l. Accordingly she wants the husband’s Canadian Divorce Application dismissed or stayed “in light of the principle of forum non conveniens”.
9The husband’s October 21, 2025 reply affidavit includes the following narrative:
a. The parties were married in Punjab, India on September 29, 2014.
b. Both parties are Canadian citizens and permanently resident here. The wife has been living in Canada since May 2016. The husband has been living in Canada since 2017.
c. There are no assets for the parties to divide or equalize.
d. They separated because of mental abuse by the wife.
e. There is no possibility of reconciliation.
f. Both parties are self-sufficient, with full-time employment. There are no financial or support issues to be resolved.
g. He sets out his own set of examples of inappropriate and abusive behaviour by the wife and her family. He says he also had to call the police on the wife.
h. On September 18, 2025 the husband learned the wife had initiated legal proceedings in India against the husband and his elderly parents. She is pursuing meritless and contradictory claims in India simply to harass the husband and his family.
i. There is no basis for the parties to have the status of their marriage determined in India. India does not have more of a connection than Canada. In fact, neither of them has any connection to India, other than the fact that their respective parents are still in India.
10I have actually toned-down those summaries. Both parties had a lot of really nasty stuff to say about each other and about their in-laws in India.
11Since the parties were representing themselves – with both declining my strong suggestion that they get more legal advice – I allowed them some latitude in making submissions.
12The wife appears to have a love/hate agenda:
a. She still loves the husband and wants to be with him. She believes the court in India can force him to reconsider.
b. But she also wants to punish him (and his parents). He shouldn’t “get away with” everything he has done. She believes the court in India will make him accountable.
13The husband’s position was clear and unwavering.
a. There is no possibility of reconciliation. He wants a divorce.
b. He is Canadian and wants assistance from a Canadian court. The court in India should have no control over his marriage in this country.
14The wife denies the husband’s allegation that she has also filed for divorce in India. She said she is only seeking “restitution of conjugal rights”. She said her claim in India should take priority over his claim in Canada.
15Territorial jurisdiction disputes typically arise where:
a. One of the parties resides outside of Ontario, or
b. The parties are litigating the same issues in another jurisdiction.
16Here, both parties are permanent residents of this country, and the same issues are not being litigated in both Canada and India.
a. The husband seeks a divorce, which is relief available in Canada. A divorce is an in rem order. Once the parties are divorced in one jurisdiction, they are divorced everywhere because their legal status has changed. A divorce is notice to the world as to the dissolution of a specific marriage.
b. In India the wife is asking for “restitution of conjugal rights”, relief not recognized in Canada. She seeks an in personam order, which settles obligations between specific parties, affecting their private rights without altering their universal legal status.
c. A Canadian divorce should be recognized in India.
d. An Indian “restitution of conjugal rights” would not be recognized in Canada.
e. Indeed, in their present circumstances, if the wife obtained an Indian divorce it would not likely be recognized in Canada, because of the parties’ lack of habitual residence in India. (Divorce Act, s.22.)
17As the Supreme Court of Canada explained in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, there are two steps to analyzing the court’s territorial jurisdiction.
18First, the court must determine jurisdiction simpliciter: Whether the case falls within the limits of the scope of the court’s jurisdiction. The wife does not dispute that this court has jurisdiction to deal with the husband’s application under the Divorce Act.
19Once jurisdiction is established, the court must then determine -- pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens -- whether to decline jurisdiction in favour of another more appropriate forum elsewhere. Morgan v. Baxter, 2015 ONSC 2214 (SCJ).
20The burden of establishing forum non conveniens rests on the party asserting that another forum is more appropriate. Simons v. Crow, 2020 ONSC 5940 (SCJ). The determination is inherently factual. Haaretz.com v. Goldhar, 2018 SCC 28 (SCC).
21In this case the wife has failed to establish that the Ontario court should decline jurisdiction in favour of India.
a. The legal and factual issue in the Canadian case is relatively straightforward: whether to grant a divorce.
b. The parties are here. They are Canadian citizens and domiciled here.
c. By far the majority of their period of cohabitation was in Canada, and they were permanently resident here when separation occurred.
d. The relevant evidence is here.
e. The husband’s application meets all the requirements of the Divorce Act.
f. The parties not only have a substantial connection with Ontario – they hardly have any remaining connection to India. Neither of them has even returned to their native country for a very long time. Neither indicated any intention to relocate back to India in the future.
g. The wife insists that having been married in India, the parties are forever bound by the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. Apart from mentioning the name of this legislation, she provided virtually no information about what that legislation entails, or the legal basis for Indian law applying at this stage in the parties’ lives in Canada.
h. Although the wife was unclear about exactly what “restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act” would mean, it doesn’t sound consistent with Canadian law or public policy – and in any event I accept the husband’s position that as a Canadian he wants nothing to do with it.
i. The wife has not established that there would be any unfairness or prejudice to allowing the husband to proceed with a divorce application. Her disappointment is not enough.
j. Quite to the contrary, I find that it would be unfair to the husband to prevent him from pursuing relief he is entitled to, on a very important personal issue.
22This is a sad case. Unrequited love is tragic.
23But this case was never really about forum non conveniens. The wife is simply grasping at straws because she likes being in Canada, but she doesn’t like Canadian laws.
24While the parties were still in India, perhaps there might have been legal remedies to try to get the husband to change his mind. Indeed, under our Divorce Act, judges are required to ask the parties one last time if there is any possibility of reconciliation.
25But we won’t – and shouldn’t – force people to stay together.
26These parties made the decision to become Canadians. That means they are both bound by Canadian law.
27The wife’s motion is dismissed.
Pazaratz J.
Date: January 23, 2026