[CITATION]: Shah v. Shah, 2026 ONSC 780
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
SHAH, Vismay Vijay
Self-represented
Appellant
- and -
SHAH, Chandni Vismay
Sophia Dharamshi, for the Respondent
Respondent
HEARD: January 5, 2026
RELEASED: February 9, 2026
REASONS ON APPEAL FROM OCJ TRIAL
Stewart J.
OVERVIEW
The applicant/appellant father and respondent mother married in India in 2004. They emigrated to Canada in 2010 and had their child, A., in 2011.
The parties separated in November 2018 at which time they signed a separation agreement.
The father started a proceeding in the Ontario Court of Justice in 2024. Following a 3.5-day trial in November 2024, the trial judge released her reasons on January 8, 2025. The appellant father asks that the trial decision be set aside in its entirety and substitute orders:
a. Setting aside the separation agreement;
b. Giving the appellant father sole or shared decision-making responsibility;
c. Requiring that A. immediately relocate from India to Ontario; and
d. Ordering that the child remain habitually resident in Ontario.
The respondent mother asks this court to uphold the trial decision.
The appellant father does not identify any viable grounds of appeal or errors of law. In addition, the appellate father asked for relief not available in law, including:
a. Asking the court to provide legal opinions to him;
b. Asking for damages to be paid by the respondent, Ms. Shah; and
c. Demanding that the court agree to indemnify him for his damages.
- For the reasons that follow, the appeal must be dismissed.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
- The appellant father’s notice of appeal dated April 18, 2025, sets out ten grounds of appeal. The grounds are not specific. Broadly speaking, these grounds fall into two categories:
a. The trial judge erred in her ultimate decision; and
b. The trial judge erred in not considering the parallel proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice.
The appellant father also raised complaints about the conferences conducted by the Ontario Court of Justice prior to the trial. These conferences are not the subject of the appeal. The subject of the appeal is the trial decision.
During oral argument, the appellant father advised that he relies on two further documents:
a. Affidavit affirmed December 14, 2025; and
b. Opening statement dated January 3, 2025.
Both documents were served on the respondent and uploaded to CaseCentre, but they were not filed with the court.
The appellant says that he needed to rely on these documents because he was not permitted to amend his notice of appeal. There was no evidence about what efforts, if any, were made to amend the notice of appeal.
The opening statement document sets out an additional 29 grounds of appeal, broken down into three broad non-specific categories:
a. The OCJ lacked valid jurisdiction
b. Breaches of law
c. Breaches of due process and discrimination.
As a preliminary matter, the respondent asks the court to disregard the new grounds of appeal.
Rule 38(11) of the Family Law Rules says that, during appeal hearing, the appellant is limited to the ground of appeal set out in the notice of appeal unless the court grants permission for other grounds.
To the extent that the January 3, 2026 document entitled “opening statement” sets out any new grounds of appeal, the court refuses to consider these new grounds as if would be procedurally unfair for the respondent to face new grounds of appeal served on the Saturday before the appeal argument.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The appeal properly lies to a single judge of the Superior Court of Justice.
The appellant does not specify whether he appeals on a question of law, question of fact or a question of mixed fact and law. He made no reference to the trial reasons during his oral argument.
Questions of law are reviewed for correctness, questions of fact are reviewed for palpable and overriding error, and questions of mixed fact and law are reviewed on the deferential standard except for “extricable questions of law” for which the correctness standard applies1.
Decisions in family law cases attract a narrow scope of appellate review because of the highly fact-specific and discretionary determinations made by trial courts. Appellate courts are required to review a decision generously and as a whole, with the presumption that trial judges know the law2.
An appeal is not an opportunity to relitigate trial cases, especially in parenting cases where finality is of paramount importance3. Trial judges are in a better position than appellate judges to determine a child’s best interests4.
Because the appellant did not identify any specific questions of law, questions of fact or questions of mixed fact and law, this court read the trial reasons with a wide lens, reviewing for any potential errors.
PARTIAL TRANSCRIPTS OF TRIAL
Rule 38(12) of the Family Law Rules provides that if the appeal requires a transcript of evidence, the appellant shall file proof that the transcript has been ordered within 30 days after filing the notice of appeal.
In this case, the appellant father provided only partial transcripts. The appeal record contains three excerpts from the trial:
| Date | Number of Pages | Content |
|---|---|---|
| November 26, 2024 (Day 2 of trial) | Six pages | Submissions from parties re: potential conflict of R’s counsel made at beginning of court day |
| Novebmer 27, 2024 (Day 3 of trial) | Fifty pages | Comments from court re: law and procedure; second portion of excerpt is submissions from appellant re: exhibits and part of cross examination of respondent, Ms. Shah. |
| November 26, 2024 (Day 2 of trial) | Fifty-three pages | Appellant’s examination in chief of Dr. Michael Muller |
During oral argument, the appellant father advised that he did not need the full transcript for the appeal, and he had financial constraints.
The court recognizes that transcripts are costly. To the extent that an appellant raises issues with the conduct of the trial, this requires the court to review and analyze the transcript. In this case, the appellant father did not raise specific issues with the conduct of the trial, other than to argue that the trial was not procedurally fair, without specific examples.
The respondent mother did not consent to partial transcripts being used on the appeal.
The court thoroughly reviewed the partial transcripts in keeping with the court’s stated approach to review the appeal materials with a wide lens, reviewing for any potential errors. The appellant father did not refer to any appealable errors in the transcript and the court did not identify any.
ANALYSIS
The trial decision generally
Before moving to specific findings, the court notes that the trial decision was organized and comprehensive. The trial judge clearly set out the facts, issues and law. The trial reasons summarize the positions of each party and clearly explain the court’s analysis in reaching the final orders.
One of the grounds of appeal is that the trial judge did not address all the factual issues in the decision to uphold the separation agreement. The appellant did not point to any evidence which was not addressed by the trial judge. However, as a general comment, trial judges are not required to discuss every piece of evidence introduced at trial, nor are they required to address every argument. Rather, trial judges must demonstrate that they grappled with the essential issues raised in the litigation5.
The trial judge did not err in her decision to proceed with the trial
Shortly before the trial, the applicant/appellant father started a second application in the Superior Court of Justice.
The appellant did not obtain a stay of proceedings from the Superior Court, nor did he seek to transfer the Ontario Court of Justice proceeding to the Superior Court.
The trial judge correctly concluded that it was in the best interests of the child (among other reasons) that the trial proceed in November, 2024.
The trial judge did not err in her decision to uphold the separation agreement
The parties signed a separation agreement in November 2018. The appellant father asked the trial judge to set the separation agreement aside on the basis that he was under duress, he did not understand the agreement, he did not have a lawyer, and the agreement was meant to be temporary.
The trial judge correctly set out the law that setting aside a domestic agreement is done only in exceptional circumstances and that the appellant had the burden to persuade the court that the agreement should be set aside.
The facts did not support a finding that the appellant father misunderstood the agreement. Indeed, the court observed that the appellant to be an intelligent individual who had the support of family members in drafting the agreement.
The facts did not support a finding that the appellant was under duress. Duress requires extreme circumstances. Antagonism and stress do not meet that threshold6. This court agrees with the trial judge that none of the appellant father’s trial evidence came close to meeting the threshold for duress.
The trial judge did not err in her decision to permit relocation and granting decision making to the respondent mother
The trial judge provided a comprehensive summary of the law on relocation. At all times, the trial judge remained focused on the best interests of A., as required by the Children’s Law Reform Act and the caselaw. In addition to evidence from the parties and some family members, the trial judge also had the benefit of expert evidence from Dr. Muller (who prepared an ASD evaluation), the child’s therapist and an OCL clinician who prepared a voice of the child report. In addition to the expert evidence satisfying the court that A. does not have autism spectrum disorder (but is intellectually gifted), the OCL evidence permitted the trial judge to have A.’s views which were clear and specific.
The trial judge’s analysis of the relocation factors was careful and thorough. The conclusions of the Court of Appeal in the case of O’Brien v. Chuluunbaatar are equally applicable in this case: the trial judge made unimpeachable factual findings, correctly articulated the relevant legal principles governing relocation, and applied those principles to the facts as she found them, before concluding that relocation was in the child’s best interests. There is no basis to interfere with the trial judge’s exercise of discretion7.
This court finds no errors of law, fact or mixed fact and law in the decision to give decision making, primary residence and relocation permission to the mother.
COSTS
- The parties advised the court that:
a. There is no agreement on costs; and
b. There were no offers on costs.
During oral argument, the court heard the preliminary costs positions of each party. However, given that this decision was reserved, the court advised that further written costs submissions would be permitted.
The respondent, Ms. Shah, is is the successful party on this appeal and is presumptively entitled to her costs.
The parties are encouraged to agree on costs. If they will not, written costs submissions will be served, filed and uploaded to Case Centre on the following schedule:
a. Respondent, by February 27, 2026, at 4pm.
b. Appellant, by March 27, 2026, at 4pm.
c. No reply is permitted.
These deadlines cannot be varied unless by court order. If submissions are not received by these deadlines, the court will proceed on the basis that costs are not being sought. If costs are resolved, the parties should inform the court.
Costs submissions will be double spaced, in 12-point font, and three pages, maximum (exclusive of offers, authorities and bills of costs).
Stewart J.
Released: February 9, 2026.
[CITATION]: Shah v. Shah, 2026 ONSC 780
COURT FILE NO.: FS-25-00000037
DATE: 2026-02-09
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
SHAH, Vismay Vijay
Appellant
- and –
SHAH, Chandni Vismay
Respondent
REASONS ON APPEAL
FROM OCJ TRIAL
Stewart J.
Released: February 9, 2026
Footnotes
- Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33.
- Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22 at paras 100 to 104.
- Barendregt v. Grebliunas, at para 104, referring to Van de Perre v. Edwards, 2001 SCC 60 at para 13.
- Reeves v. Brand, 2018 ONCA 263 at para 6.
- Van de Perre v. Edwards, 2001 SCC 60 at para 10; K.K. v. M.M., 2022 ONCA 72 at 73; Potter v. DaSilva, 2015 ONSC 3088 at para 24.
- Taplin v. Walsh, 2016 ONSC 2998 at paras 66 to 68.
- O’Brien v. Chuluunbaatar, 2021 ONCA 555 at para 6.```