Court File and Parties
Newmarket Court File No.: FC-24-298-00
Date: February 12, 2026
Superior Court of Justice – Ontario – Family Court
Re: Morvarid Ghorbani, Applicant
And: Seyed Siavash Ehsani, Respondent
Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice G.A. MacPherson
Counsel: Applicant – Self-represented Dr. N. Abedi, Counsel for the Respondent
Heard: February 11, 2026
Ruling on Motion
Relief Requested
[1] The Respondent filed a motion seeking the following Orders:
(a) an Order dismissing the Applicant's claims in the Application on the grounds that all of the issues have been previously adjudicated;
(b) in the alternative, an Order striking the Applicant's pleadings for failure to comply with court Orders;
(c) in the further alternative, an Order granting the Respondent summary judgment pursuant to Rule 16 dismissing all claims;
(d) in the further alternative, an Order granting the Respondent leave to proceed by way of 23C; and
(e) costs.
[2] The Applicant was served with the Notice of Motion and affidavit in support on October 17, 2025. The Applicant did not file an affidavit in response and did not attend today's motion. This Court paged the Applicant at 11:00 a.m. and 11:15 a.m. There was no response. The Applicant did not attend the virtual motion.
Brief Litigation History
[3] The parties were married in Iran on June 20, 2003.
[4] In her pleadings, the Applicant states the parties separated October 30, 2018.
[5] In his pleadings, the Respondent states the parties separated December 1, 2018.
[6] The parties did not have children.
Simple Divorce Application Commenced by the Respondent in Ontario – 2020
[7] In 2020 the Respondent filed an Application for a simple divorce in Toronto under Court File # FS-20-16003.
[8] The Applicant was served with the Application for Divorce at her address by process server who left it with an adult living in the home, Azadeh Samani.
[9] On October 19, 2020 Justice Diamond made an Order that the parties be divorced and that the divorce take effect 31 days later.
[10] The Order of Justice Diamond was not varied and was not appealed.
Application Advanced by the Applicant in Iran – 2020
[11] The Applicant, represented by counsel, commenced proceedings in Iran in 2020. According to the Respondent's affidavit and a September 27, 2020 Ruling from the Family Court in the City of Karaj, the Applicant requested the following relief:
(a) enforcement of the Mahr;
(b) spousal support;
(c) a divorce; and
(d) other financial issues.
[12] It is noteworthy that the Courts in Iran, on two occasions, acknowledged the divorce proceedings in Canada. The first acknowledgement was made in the September 27, 2020 Ruling when they referenced the pending divorce proceedings in Canada. The second acknowledgement was in the December 10, 2022 Ruling when they referenced the divorce being finalized in Canada.
[13] The Respondent states that on July 3, 2022, an Iranian Court issued a final decree confirming the Respondent had fully satisfied the Applicant's Mahr obligation when a pre-construction condominium was transferred to the Applicant.
[14] The Respondent states that on December 4, 2022, the Iranian Court made a final spousal support Order requiring the Respondent to pay spousal support to the Applicant for three years.
Application Advanced by the Applicant – Newmarket – October 19, 2023
[15] On October 19, 2023 the Applicant executed an Application in Newmarket requesting the following relief:
(a) a divorce;
(b) spousal support;
(c) equalization of net family properties including enforcement of Mahr, and
(d) freezing assets.
[16] It is noteworthy that in her Application, the Applicant made no request to set aside the Divorce Order of Justice Diamond dated October 19, 2020. It is noteworthy that in her Application, the Applicant made no request for an extension of time to pursue a claim for an equalization of net family properties under section 5(1) of the Family Law Act.
[17] The Respondent deposes, and the endorsement reflects, that the Applicant did not attend the Trial Scheduling Conference scheduled for February 21, 2025. The Case Management Judge, Justice Finlayson, adjourned the Trial Scheduling Conference to June 12, 2025.
[18] The Respondent deposes, and the endorsement reflects, that the Applicant did not attend the Trial Scheduling Conference scheduled for June 12, 2025. Justice Finlayson ordered the Applicant to pay costs of $1,000 forthwith and adjourned the Trial Scheduling Conference to September 29, 2025. I am told the costs remain outstanding.
[19] The Respondent deposes, and the endorsement reflects, that the Applicant did not attend the Trial Scheduling Conference scheduled for September 29, 2025. Justice Finlayson ordered the Applicant to pay costs of $1,000 and granted leave for the Respondent to proceed with a long motion to strike pleadings and/or summary judgment.
Discussion
Applicant's Claim for Divorce
[20] The parties were divorced by Order of Justice Diamond dated October 19, 2020.
[21] In her Form 10 A Reply, the Applicant states that she was unaware of the divorce proceeding commenced in 2020. The Applicant, in her pleadings, states that she was never served with the Application. The Applicant did not file evidence for today's motion. The Reply is not evidence.
[22] The affidavit of service states that the Application for a simple divorce was served on the Applicant by a process server on March 11, 2020, when the Application was left in a sealed envelope with the Applicant's roommate, Ms. Azadeh Samani. The Application was also sent to the Applicant's home by mailing a duplicate copy. On February 5, 2025, Ms. Samani executed an affidavit confirming she received the sealed envelope and personally handed it to the Applicant who opened it and acknowledged it contained divorce papers.
[23] As stated, there are two references to divorce proceedings in Canada in two separate Endorsements from the Iranian Courts. The references were made on September 27, 2020 (that the divorce was pending in Canada) and December 10, 2022 (that the divorce was finalized in Canada).
[24] I do not accept that the Applicant was unaware of the divorce proceedings in Canada based on the affidavit of service and based on the affidavit of Ms. Samani. There is no evidence that the Applicant advanced a motion to vary the Divorce Order pursuant to Rule 25 (19) (d) of the Family Law Rules.
[25] Issue estoppel prevents a party from relitigating an issue of fact or law that was already decided in a prior proceeding. The three elements are present in this case:
(a) the divorce has been decided;
(b) the divorce was final; and
(c) the parties to the divorce are the same parties present in this action.
[26] The Applicant's claim for a divorce is res judicata as the Order of Justice Diamond dated October 19, 2020, granting the parties' divorce has not been appealed, varied nor has it been set aside.
Applicant's Claim for Equalization and Mahr
[27] Pursuant to Section 5 (1) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c F. 3:
when a divorce is granted or a marriage is declared a nullity, or when the spouses are separated and there is no reasonable prospect that they will resume cohabitation, the spouse whose net family property is the lesser of the two net family properties is entitled to one-half the difference between them.
[28] Pursuant to Section 7 (3) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c F. 3: An Application based on subsection 5(1) of (2) shall not be brought after the earliest of:
a) two years after the day the marriage is terminated by divorce or judgment of nullity;
b) six years after the day the spouses separate and there is no reasonable prospect that they will resume cohabitation;
c) six months after the first spouse's death.
[29] The Respondent argues that the Applicant's request for an equalization of net family properties is statute barred.
[30] The parties were divorced 31 days following the October 19, 2020 Order of Justice Diamond. Accordingly, the Applicant was required to advance a claim under section 5 (1) of the Family Law Act no later than November 19, 2022. The equalization claim under section 5(1) of the Family Law Act was advanced three years after the divorce.
[31] An extension of time to advance a claim under Section 5 (1) of the Family Law Act may be granted provided certain conditions are met. These are set out in section 2(8) of the Family Law Act:
2(8) The court may, on motion, extend a time prescribed by this Act if it is satisfied that,
a) there are apparent grounds for relief;
b) relief is unavailable because of delay that has been incurred in good faith; and
c) no person will suffer substantial prejudice by reason of the delay.
[32] The preconditions are conjunctive. The Applicant has the burden of establishing all three of the preconditions before the court can exercise any discretion to extend time. Additionally, other circumstances may, if they do exist, be considered in deciding if and how the discretion should be exercised.
[33] The Applicant has not requested an extension of time to advance a claim under Section 5 (1) of the Family Law Act. The Applicant has filed no materials upon which the court might conclude that the conjunctive preconditions are met. The Applicant has not met her burden and has not advanced any evidence to persuade the court to exercise its discretion.
[34] The evidence before the court confirms that the financial issues and Mahr were argued in the Iranian Courts and that the issues were resolved by the transfer of a pre-construction condominium to the Applicant. There is no evidence upon which one might conclude that there are grounds for relief to pursue an equalization claim, that the delay in doing so was incurred in good faith and that no person would suffer substantial prejudice.
[35] Issue estoppel prevents the Applicant from relitigating the same issues that have already been decided in a prior proceeding. The three elements are present in this case:
(a) the Mahr and the remaining financial issues were decided in Iran;
(b) the Iranian decision on the Mahr and the remaining financial issues was final; and
(c) the parties to the Mahr are the same parties present in this action.
[36] The Applicant's request for equalization and the Mahar is res judicata and the Applicant's claim for an equalization of net family properties is statute barred.
Applicant's Claim for Spousal Support
[37] The Applicant filed a claim for spousal support in Iran in 2020. The issue was adjudicated in Iran and the Respondent was ordered to provide spousal support to the Applicant for three years. Following completion of the Iranian litigation, the Applicant filed for spousal support in Canada.
[38] Issue estoppel prevents the Applicant from relitigating spousal support as it was already decided in a prior proceeding. The three elements are present in this case:
(a) spousal support was decided in Iran;
(b) the Iranian decision on spousal support was final; and
(c) the parties to the spousal support litigation are the same parties present in this action.
[39] The Applicant is precluded from litigating the spousal support claim in Ontario as the issue is res judicata.
[40] It is noteworthy that it was the Applicant that attorned to the jurisdiction of Iran when she advanced her claims in Iran as the jurisdiction from which spousal support, Mahar, and the other financial issues would be litigated. The Applicant was represented by Counsel in Iran. Spousal support, the Mahar and the financial issues between the parties were argued in Iran over a multiple year period until a final Ruling was released. There is no evidence before this court to suggest that the Iranian proceedings were conducted in the absence of principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
[41] Challenging a judicial Order is to occur through the appellate process and not by jurisdictional hopping. Forum shopping and attempts to relitigate an issue already adjudicated is an abuse of process.
Other
[42] Pursuant to Section 38.08 (2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, an Applicant who fails to appear at the hearing shall be deemed to have abandoned the Application unless the Court orders otherwise.
[43] The Applicant did not attend Trial Scheduling Conferences on February 21, 2025, June 12, 2025 and September 29, 2025.
[44] The Applicant was served with today's Notice of Motion and affidavit on October 17, 2025; was served with the factum on October 31, 2025 and was served with the confirmation on November 6, 2025. The Applicant did not attend today's motion to strike pleadings/summary judgment.
[45] Pursuant to subrule 16 (4.1) of the Family Law Rules, the Applicant is required to respond to a summary judgment motion by setting out specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. The Applicant did not do so.
[46] This court is also of the view that the Applicant's claims have been, effectively, abandoned.
[47] I need not deal with the issue of striking pleadings as the claims set out in the Application for the reasons set out above are dismissed.
Costs
[48] The courts and the rules of court as it relates to the issue of costs are designed to foster four purposes; specifically, (1) to partially indemnify the successful litigant; (2) to encourage settlement; (3) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants; and (4) to ensure that cases are dealt with justly under subrule 2(2) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, as amended, ("the Rules") (see Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867).
[49] By any metric the Respondent was the most successful party.
[50] As the successful party, subrule 24(3) of the Rules creates a presumption of costs in favour of the Respondent.
[51] Subrule 24(8) of the Rules provides criteria for determining the reasonableness of a party's behaviour in a case (a factor in clause 24(12) (a) (1) above). It reads as follows:
DECISION ON REASONABLENESS
(5) In deciding whether a party has behaved reasonably or unreasonably, the court may examine,
(a) the party's behaviour in relation to the issues from the time they arose, including whether the party made an offer to settle;
(b) the reasonableness of any offer the party made; and
(c) any offer the party withdrew or failed to accept.
[52] Forum shopping and jurisdictional hopping is unreasonable litigation behaviour.
[53] An award of costs is subject to a number of factors, specifically those set forth in Rule 24(14). It reads as follows:
SETTING COSTS AMOUNTS
(14) In setting the amount of costs, the court may consider,
(a) the reasonableness and proportionality of each of the following factors as it relates to the importance and complexity of the issues:
(i) each party's behaviour,
(ii) the time spent by each party,
(iii) any written offers to settle including offers that do not meet the conditions set out in subrule (12) or the requirements of rule 18,
(iv) any legal fees, including the number of lawyers and their rates,
(v) any expert witness fees, including the number of experts and their rates,
(vi) any other expenses properly paid or payable; and
(b) any other relevant matter.
[54] I have reviewed the Bills of Costs submitted by the Respondent.
[55] In arriving at an award of costs, I am mindful that this court must exercise a discretion based on principles of reasonableness and proportionality (see Beaver v. Hill, 2018 ONCA 840).
[56] I have considered that the Respondent was the successful party. I have considered the litigation behaviour of the Applicant was unreasonable.
[57] I have considered the volume of materials and the complexity involved. I have decided that legal fees and disbursements, in the amount of $20,000, are fair, reasonable and proportionate to award the Respondent considering his success, the volume of materials, the length of the motion, the complexity involved, and the unreasonable litigation behaviour of the Applicant.
Order
This is a Final Order.
This Order is made pursuant to the Family Law Rules the Family Law Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure.
This Ruling is deemed to be an Order of the Court that is operative and enforceable without any need for a signed or entered, formal, typed Order.
The Applicant's claims in her Application and Reply are dismissed.
The claims the Respondent set out in his Answer were orally withdrawn on the record this day.
The Applicant shall, within 14 days, pay costs to the Respondent fixed in the amount of $20,000 inclusive of HST.
The Applicant's approval of the Order as to form and content is dispensed with.
The cost Orders of Justice Finlayson in the cumulative amount of $2,000 are due and payable forthwith.
This judgment bears pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest.
The Honourable Justice G.A. MacPherson
Date: February 12, 2026