Vic Sehdev

This motion arose from the separation of the Applicant father and Respondent mother.

The Respondent had de facto possession of the matrimonial home due to criminal charges against the Applicant.

The Respondent sought sole possession of the home, child support, and parenting time.

The Applicant sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, child and spousal support, and parenting time.

The court addressed parenting time (mostly by consent), imputed income to both parties, ordered interim child support from the Applicant, and ordered a $5,000 undifferentiated payment from the Applicant to the Respondent.

The court granted the Applicant exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, finding the balance of convenience favored him despite domestic violence allegations.

No interim spousal support was ordered due to the short marriage and other factors.

The court also issued directions for ongoing disclosure and a timetable for the litigation.

The applicant brought a motion to sever the divorce from all corollary relief, which the respondent opposed, arguing it would prejudice her ongoing domestic violence claim in India.

The court, applying Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules, found that the respondent would not be legally disadvantaged by the severance, relying on expert evidence regarding Indian law which indicated that a divorce decree would not absolve liability or deny benefits under the Protection for Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The court also declined to exercise its residual discretion to refuse severance, finding no evidence of applicant's non-compliance or delay.

The motion to sever the divorce was granted.

The applicant husband commenced a divorce application in Ontario while residing in India.

The respondent wife, who had never lived in Canada, subsequently commenced divorce and support proceedings in India.

The respondent brought a motion to stay or dismiss the Ontario application for lack of jurisdiction.

The court granted the motion, finding that neither party had been habitually resident in Ontario for at least one year prior to the application, as required by the Divorce Act.

The court also held that the respondent could not attorn to a jurisdiction the court did not possess, and that under the Family Law Act, the parties' property rights were governed by the law of India, their last common habitual residence.

The Applicant Mother sought temporary sole decision-making authority for the children's healthcare, vaccinations, education, and general well-being, and involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The Respondent Father sought a gradual expansion of parenting time to be equal, an order compelling the Mother to attend a "Pathways Through Conflict" program for alleged alienation, and an order for common rules and discipline.

The court granted the Mother temporary sole decision-making authority in all areas, particularly regarding vaccinations, citing the Father's nonsensical position on public health recommendations and lack of cooperation.

The court denied the Father's request for equal parenting time, maintaining the status quo with some adjustments to his parenting schedule, and dismissed his requests to compel the Mother to attend the program or agree to common rules, finding no evidence of alienation and emphasizing each parent's authority for day-to-day decisions during their parenting time.

The court also addressed evidentiary issues, ruling against the admissibility of hearsay and surreptitious audio recordings.

The applicant father sought primary residence of the parties' two children, or in the alternative, specified parenting time and authority for counselling for one child.

The respondent mother opposed, citing a history of domestic violence and alleging the children were negatively impacted.

The court noted serious parental conflict, allegations of domestic violence, and gatekeeping.

While not conclusively determining alienation, the court emphasized the need for quick action where alienation is suspected.

The court made temporary orders granting the mother primary residence and sole medical decision-making, and the father specified parenting time with one child (JS) under certain conditions.

No order was made for parenting time with the older child (AS) but it was encouraged.

The parties were ordered to engage a specific child psychologist for therapeutic treatment, with costs shared.

The court also issued orders regarding communication, recording, and social media use, and declined to award costs due to both parties exceeding practice direction limits.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's financial pleadings for his failure to comply with previous disclosure and costs orders.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, noting the father had made a good faith effort to provide most of the outstanding disclosure and that less drastic remedies were available for the unpaid costs.

However, the court ordered that the sale of the matrimonial home proceed without the father's consent due to his failure to cooperate with a previous order.

The father was ordered to pay $1,000 in costs for the appearance.

The court issued an endorsement on costs following the dismissal of the respondent father's urgent motion.

The applicant mother was entirely successful on the motion and sought costs on a full recovery basis.

The court noted the parties' failure to comply with court directions regarding submissions and the father's non-compliance with previous orders concerning the matrimonial home.

Considering the mother's more favourable Offer to Settle and the father's unduly lengthy and irrelevant affidavits, the court awarded the mother $15,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable within 30 days.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking expanded and overnight access to the child, Raphael, and a change in access exchange location.

The applicant mother opposed the motion.

The court found that the motion was not urgent, noting that existing access arrangements were largely being followed and that the father had misrepresented the urgency.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to existing court orders and bail conditions, and the need for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer or a private assessment to determine the child's best interests regarding overnight access.

The father's motion was dismissed.

The Respondent Wife brought a motion to set aside a divorce order obtained by the Applicant Husband, alleging non-service of documentation and misrepresentation in the Husband's affidavit for divorce.

The court found that the Wife delayed in bringing the motion and refused to accept a "nunc pro tunc" order severing the divorce from corollary relief, which would have addressed her claimed prejudice.

The court weighed the prejudice to both parties, noting the Husband had remarried, and dismissed the Wife's motion.

Instead, the court ordered the consolidation of three related files and, with the Husband's consent, severed the divorce from the corollary relief nunc pro tunc as of January 16, 2018.

Costs were awarded to the Husband.

A grandmother sought access to her two grandchildren and annual contact information regarding the children's parents and their care.

The parents opposed the applications and sought dismissal with costs.

The court applied the three-part test from Giansante v. DiChiara to determine whether a positive grandparent-grandchild relationship existed, whether the parents' decision imperilled that relationship, and whether the parents acted arbitrarily.

The court found no pre-existing positive relationship, as contact had been limited in frequency, duration, and location, and was primarily facilitated by the father's attempt to reconcile with his mother.

The court dismissed both applications, finding the parents' decision to terminate access was made in the best interests of the children and was not arbitrary.