Washim Ahmed

The court granted the applicant's motion to strike the respondent's pleadings in a protracted family law dispute, finding a persistent pattern of non-disclosure, delay, and non-compliance with court orders by the respondent.

The court also granted declaratory and enforcement relief regarding property transfers and allowed the applicant to proceed to an uncontested trial, with limited rights for the respondent to submit evidence.

The decision reviews the legal principles for striking pleadings in family law, emphasizing the exceptional nature of the remedy and the importance of disclosure and compliance.

The respondent father brought a motion for leave to proceed with an urgent motion for access to his newborn son.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion for leave to proceed with an urgent motion for child support, a compliance order regarding criminal recognizance, and a restraining order preventing contact.

The court considered whether the motions met the test for urgency and determined that while there were serious issues, they did not meet the threshold for urgent motion relief at that time.

The court found that the issues could be appropriately addressed through an urgent case conference scheduled for April 27, 2020, which could proceed remotely.

M.A. brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the child, U.M.A., to Worcester, Massachusetts.

R.K. opposed, arguing the Convention was inapplicable or, alternatively, that exceptions under Article 13 applied.

The court found that U.M.A., born in Canada and having never been to the U.S., was habitually resident in Canada.

Applying the hybrid approach from Balev, the court determined that the focal point of the child's life was Canada.

The Hague Convention application was dismissed, and the Ontario Court assumed jurisdiction for custody and access matters under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent father sought to set aside a final child support order made in 2013 on the grounds of lack of service and failure to appear, or alternatively, to vary the order retroactively based on a change in circumstances.

The applicant mother opposed both requests.

The court found that the father had adequate notice of the proceedings through service of an amended application and related documents, and that he failed to provide satisfactory reasons for his non-appearance.

The court dismissed the request to set aside the order.

However, the court found that the father's actual income was substantially less than the $150,000 imputed by the original judge, and that there had been a material change in circumstances.

The court varied the order retroactively from January 1, 2014, determining the father's income based on a lifestyle analysis that revealed significant unreported cash income.

The court also accounted for the birth of a second child in 2015 as a change in circumstances.