Batool v. Siddiqui, 2022 BCSC 1220

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Batool v. Siddiqui, 2022 BCSC 1220 Date: 20220719 Docket: E57152 Registry: New Westminster Between: Pak Maryam Batool Claimant And Rizwan Rahat Siddiqui, also known as Rizwan Siddiqui Respondent Before: The Honourable Justice Schultes Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Claimant: S.K. Basi Counsel for the Respondent: M.H. Awan Place and Date of Hearing: New Westminster, B.C. December 3, 2021 Place and Date of Judgment: New Westminster, B.C. July 19, 2022 Introduction and Background [ 1 ] Mr.

Siddiqui, the respondent in this family law matter, is applying for orders: • setting aside or varying a final order that was obtained by the claimant Ms. Batool following substituted service on him, and allowing him to file a response to family claim; • relating to guardianship, parental responsibilities, and parenting time for the parties’ daughter Zehra; • for financial disclosure by Ms. Batool; and • for her to pay the proceeds of sale of their former residence into court, and to pay certain family debts. [ 2 ] There are two main issues: (1) whether Mr.

Siddiqui has met the test for setting the order aside and, if so, (2) what further orders are appropriate now. [ 3 ] The parties’ versions of the relevant events differ markedly. I have attempted to filter out the differences that will not affect the result. [ 4 ] As background, the undisputed events include the following. [ 5 ] Ms. Batool and Mr. Siddiqui were married in Pakistan in February 2011. Zehra was born in November of that year. Mr. Siddiqui immigrated to Canada in 2012 and sponsored Ms. Batool and Zehra to immigrate in 2015.

While they lived in Canada the parties owned a strata property in Surrey as their family home. [ 6 ] In October, 2018 Mr. Siddiqui travelled to Pakistan. Ms. Batool and Zehra followed later that month. While the parties were in Pakistan their home was sold and the proceeds were originally held by a notary in Surrey. They were ultimately provided to Ms. Batool’s counsel in this action in trust. [ 7 ] Ms. Batool and Zehra returned to Canada in early 2019. The parties’ exact separation date is disputed but there is no question that Ms.

Batool filed a notice of family claim in March, 2019, after previously applying to prevent the proceeds of sale of the family home from being distributed. [ 8 ] In April of that year she obtained an order permitting her to serve the respondent with the notice of family claim by email, WhatsApp, and at the address of his son from a previous marriage, who lives in the United States. It is common ground that the

respondent was still in Pakistan at that point. The material filed in support of the order for substituted service sought to demonstrate the difficulty of effecting personal service in that country. [ 9 ] The final order was made on August 12, 2020. Mr. Siddiqui had not filed a response to family claim by that point and he did not attend the hearing. Although the application was spoken to in chambers by Ms. Batool’s counsel, it is clear that it proceeded as an undefended case pursuant to Rule 10-10 of the Supreme Court Family Rules .

In summarizing its terms, I will focus on those that are most relevant to this application. [ 10 ] The order granted the parties a divorce. [ 11 ] With respect to parenting, the order awarded Ms. Batool sole custody and sole guardianship of Zehra, and allocated to her all of the parental responsibilities under s. 41 of the Family Law Act . Mr. Batool was removed as a guardian and was not permitted to have contact with Zehra without making a further court application. He was also enjoined from removing her from British Columbia. [ 12 ] An income of $45,000 was imputed to Mr. Siddiqui.

He was required to pay retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support effective January 1, 2019 and to pay 62% of Zehra’s special and extraordinary expenses pursuant to s. 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines , in proportion to his income and Ms. Batool’s. [ 13 ] The family property was identified as the proceeds of sale of the family home ($129,948.56), an amount “representing the funds from the [p]arties’ line of credit appropriated by” Mr. Siddiqui ($63,194), and the proceeds of the sale of the family vehicle ($4,000). The total was $197,142. [ 14 ] The order provided that Mr.

Siddiqui’s ongoing obligation to pay child and spousal support and s. 7 expenses was to be satisfied from the funds being held in trust by Ms. Batool’s counsel, until they were depleted. In addition, fixed costs of the application for the order and half of his retroactive spousal support obligation were to be paid out of his share of those funds, with the balance of the retroactive support being designated as arrears. [ 15 ] The order contained other terms that are not significant to this application. [ 16 ]

Schedule A to the order directed how the funds in trust were to be distributed. Ms. Batool’s half share of the family property ($98,571.28) was to be paid to her immediately out of the funds in trust. [ 17 ] The remaining $31,377.28 was then to be divided in half and a further $15,388.64 paid to Ms. Batool as her half share of it. The other half share was to be apportioned to retroactive child support, s. 7 expenses, and the costs of the application. [ 18 ] The final remaining $2,759.64 was to be paid to Ms. Batool to satisfy half of the retroactive spousal support, as described above. [ 19 ] The effect of

Schedule A was to pay all of the funds in trust to Ms. Batool. The methodology underlying the manner in which the funds were distributed, essentially in three tranches, is not clear. Mr. Siddiqui’s Version of Events [ 20 ] He deposes that in 2018 he and Ms. Batool travelled to Pakistan, “to see if we can settle there and also have some vacation and see our families.” In a later

section of his affidavit he added that he wanted to spend the winter in Pakistan because of back pain he was suffering from an injury at work, and that his father was sick. [ 21 ] In previous years he had suggested that they move back to Pakistan once Ms. Batool and Zehra had obtained their Canadian citizenship, but Ms. Batool wished the family to remain in Canada. [ 22 ] To make the trip possible, he took a leave for a few months from his job in Canada. Before they left, with Ms.

Batool’s agreement, he asked a realtor to sell the family home and send them the proceeds in Pakistan. [ 23 ] He planned to have them all travel to Pakistan together at the beginning of October, but Ms. Batool wished to travel there with Zehra later that month. She and Zehra went to Karachi because her parents live there. [ 24 ] At the end of 2018, Ms. Batool told him that she wanted to live in Canada. He agreed and booked flights for them all to return February 3, 2019. Without his knowledge she and Zehra travelled back to Canada on January 1. [ 25 ] He repeatedly contacted Ms.

Batool’s parents to find out about Zehra, but they did not tell him where she and Ms. Batool were living, or that Ms. Batool had started an action against him. He intended to come to Canada to find Zehra, but became depressed. Then his father died, followed by his brother-in-law, which I infer caused further disruptions in his life. (Ms.

Batool says that his father died in May, 2020). [ 26 ] Flights from Pakistan to Canada were banned for several months in 2021, I infer because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but as soon as they were reinstated in September he returned to Canada. [ 27 ] While he was in Pakistan he established free schools for poor students, in collaboration with a non-profit organization. He did not receive any salary for his involvements, but his brothers and sisters supported him in this work.

He has included publicity material for the schools and photos of himself interacting with students. [ 28 ] With respect to the service on him of the notice of family claim, he said he did not check his email frequently in Pakistan – often not for months – and this fact was known to Ms. Batool. He did not receive a WhatsApp message containing this material in 2019 and the address in the U.S. to which the notice was sent (the copy sent to his son, I take it) was a place he had lived only briefly, 15 years earlier.

However, he also adds that he does not know his son’s address and that he received no information from him about the notice. He asserts that Ms. Batool was aware that he is not in communication with his son, who was depressed because of the death of his former spouse, who was his son’s mother. [ 29 ] In contrast, he says that there were multiple ways in which Ms. Batool could have contacted him to notify him of the action. His address was mentioned in the affidavit of the legal assistant for Ms. Batool’s counsel that described the difficulty of carrying out personal service.

He questions why mail to that address was not put forward as a form of alternative service. She and her entire family knew where he was living, he provided them with his updated phone number, and he was regularly in contact with her parents. Others through whom she could easily have passed on this information were their realtor, who had a power of attorney for Mr. Siddiqui, a family friend who Ms. Batool and Zehra stayed with when they returned to Canada, and Ms. Batool’s brother, who lives in Karachi, and with whom Mr.

Siddiqui was in regular contact. [ 30 ] He added that he was unable to “open” (the attachment containing, I took it) the final order when Ms. Batool’s counsel sent it to him by WhatsApp in 2021. In a subsequent affidavit he says that he was served with that order in February 2021, and raises a concern about the delay between it being entered in September 2020 and this date of service. [ 31 ] Addressing the merits of the final order that Ms. Batool obtained, Mr.

Siddiqui says that it was based on several important factual inaccuracies. [ 32 ] His highest income between 2016-2018 was $40,169 in 2018, and it was below $38,000 in the previous two years. His income in 2019 was $2,288 and in 2020 it was zero. There was therefore no basis to impute an income of $45,000 to him in the final order, and his resulting child support and spousal support obligations would be much lower than were ordered. [ 33 ] There was never a line of credit with a balance of $63,194, he says. There was a line of credit with TD Canada Trust, where he and Ms.

Batool had a joint account, that had a balance of about $28,000 that was used for a down payment on the family home “in 2019” (this date appears to be an error), as well as for “family expenses”. A balance of $39,654 on that line of credit is in the hands of a collection agency. He has provided documents from a collection agency and TD on this issue. These documents actually show a VISA balance of $8,603 and a line of credit balance of $31,051, both in his name, but he is correct about the total amount owing. [ 34 ] In a subsequent affidavit, in response to Ms.

Batool’s explanation that there were actually two lines of credit, he acknowledged this fact, and elaborated that the first one was taken out to cover family expenses, including the costs of travelling back and forth to Pakistan before Ms. Batool and Zehra had immigrated, repaying loans from family and friends, and covering Ms. Batool’s exorbitant spending. He obtained the line of credit and used it in this manner with her agreement.

In addition, he sent $10,000 to her mother in Pakistan to hold for them, which her mother refused to return when he arrived there. [ 35 ] He says that the second line of credit was obtained, once again with Ms. Batool’s agreement, to use as a down payment for a property in Pakistan. $29,000 was withdrawn from it for that purpose.

The sale could not complete because of the family proceedings in Canada, so the down payment, a total of $30,000, was “confiscated”. [ 36 ] Nevertheless, he continues to describe the total family debts that he has incurred as $39, 654, now clarified as consisting of the withdrawal for the property purchase in Pakistan and $8,000 of credit card bills for family expenses, including airline tickets for the three of them. [ 37 ] It is also incorrect to attribute $4,000 to him as family property for having sold the family vehicle. Mr.

Siddiqui explains that when he resigned from his job in Canada in February 2019, he was required to remove the vehicle from the parking lot at his former workplace, so he asked a friend to donate it. [ 38 ] Finally, the orders with respect to parenting were based on incorrect premises. He describes having been an extremely involved parent since Zehra’s birth, so that there is no basis on which to restrict his contact with her until there has been a court application. Ms. Batool’s Version of Events [ 39 ] Ms. Batool denies that Mr. Siddiqui’s recent activities in Pakistan involved charitable work with children.

She says that in fact he operates a real estate business there, which he previously traveled from Canada from time to time to manage. [ 40 ] She explains that their marriage broke down because of his use of alcohol, which is contrary to the requirements of their religion, and his extra-marital relationships. She also points out that he has actually lived with Zehra for only about three of the ten years of her life, and was an irresponsible parent in matters within his control, such as his unwillingness to pay for her glasses and dental work.

Given the length of time since she last saw him, Zehra is quite anxious about seeing him again. [ 41 ] Ms. Batool’s version of the events leading to their separation begins on October 8, 2018, when Mr. Siddiqui phoned her at work and told her that his father was on his deathbed and that he needed to travel to the U.S. to see him. When she returned home that day she found some household items missing, and Zehra told her that Mr. Siddiqui had sold their family car. When she contacted Mr. Siddiqui’s son, he said that his grandfather (Mr. Siddiqui’s father) was fine, and that Mr.

Siddiqui had not travelled to the U.S. [ 42 ] Mr. Siddiqui called her two weeks later and, after her persistent questioning, admitted that he was in Pakistan, claiming that he had gone there after a job interview in Dubai. He called her on October 22 and said he would send them tickets to Pakistan. He told her that his realtor friend would rent out one of the rooms in their home. She was suspicious, so she asked the realtor to take care of her belongings in the home while she was gone.

The realtor subsequently refused to answer her questions about whether the property was for rent or sale. [ 43 ] When they arrived in Karachi on October 30 he did not meet them at the airport, which required them to be picked up and then

stay with her parents. [ 44 ] While they were there, Mr. Siddiqui visited them from Lahore a few times, and kept trying to convince Zehra to move there with him. He told Ms. Batool’s mother that this was for Zehra’s religious education. He told Ms. Batool that he did not have the energy to answer his questions about his whereabouts and activities. [ 45 ] Ms. Batool told Mr. Siddiqui that she needed to return to work in Canada in time for the Christmas season.

She has attached a WhatsApp communication on November 20 in which she describes her need to go back to work in order to support Zehra, and Zehra’s need to return to school in Canada. [ 46 ] The next day he phoned her and told her that the family home had been sold. She contacted the realtor and was told that the closing date was January 8, 2019. [ 47 ] Mr. Siddiqui promised to provide her and Zehra with plane tickets back to Canada, and when he failed to do so she borrowed money from her brother to purchase them. She and Zehra returned on January 1. They stayed briefly with Mr.

Siddiqui’s friend, but then moved to a shelter after members of Mr. Siddiqui’s family threatened to send the RCMP to the friend’s house, because he was providing her and Zehra with shelter. [ 48 ] The realtor told her that Mr. Siddiqui had returned to Canada from December 20-28 and moved everything from the home, including her personal belongings. He had also told the realtor not to give her the keys to the home. He had left some suitcases and bags for her with the realtor, but she found that most of the personal items were missing.

The realtor later accompanied her to the home, from which she was able to retrieve some additional items. She then took the various legal steps to preserve the proceeds of sale of the home that I have previously summarized. [ 49 ] Her request for substituted service was based on the fact that she did not have Mr. Siddiqui’s address in Pakistan, advice from her counsel that it would be impractical to serve him personally there, and the likelihood, based on his deceptive behaviour, that he would evade service.

She provided supporting evidence of his current email address and of a second mobile phone number, in addition to the one that originated in Canada. He could be reached by WhatsApp on both numbers, she deposed.

She also asserted that he was in contact with his son in the U.S., and that he would receive notice of documents mailed to the son. (In a later affidavit for the current application she explains that when they were together the first thing he would do in the morning was check his email). [ 50 ] There was also an affidavit from his counsel’s legal assistant, setting out the unsuccessful efforts to find a process serving company that was able to carry out service in Pakistan. [ 51 ] Ms. Batool adds more recently that while she knew that Mr.

Siddiqui’s parents owned an apartment in Karachi, they lived mostly in the U.S. and the apartment was locked while they were away. She acknowledges that she thought that Mr. Siddiqui “might” be there, but the barrier to carrying out personal service in Pakistan remained. [ 52 ] In a subsequent affidavit, she provides a message from Mr. Siddiqui’s son confirming that he had forwarded the material to one of Mr. Siddiqui’s sisters (he could not recall which one). [ 53 ] When seeking the final order, Ms. Batool referred to evidence of deposits to their joint bank account from Mr.

Siddiqui’s employment as a property manager, which supported a gross annual income of $45,520. She also alleged that he worked two evenings per week as a security guard for cash payments which, based on the average hourly rate for that position in Surrey, should have added a further $13,307 to his income. The total of $58,827, was said to represent “at least” the income he was capable of earning. [ 54 ] In support of the division of property being sought, Ms. Batool explained, as an overview, that Mr.

Siddiqui was responsible for the family’s finances and was very secretive about his financial activities. [ 55 ] She demonstrated that there were two lines of credit that had been taken out by Mr. Siddiqui and had funds drawn from them deposited into their joint account. $50,000 was deposited into their joint account from the first line of credit and $29,000 into it from the second one.

She also attached bank statements showing a significant number of withdrawals of these funds from the joint account after the dates on which they were deposited: March to December 2018 for the first one, and November 2018 to Jun 19 for the second. The total withdrawals were $63,195, all without her knowledge or consent. Most were e-transfers or transfers to Mr. Siddiqui’s credit card. [ 56 ] She also provided the closing documents for the sale of the family home, which indicated that a second mortgage of $49,451 was paid out from the sale proceeds.

She was not aware what the funds obtained from the second mortgage had been used for. [ 57 ] Dealing with Mr. Siddiqui’s sale of the family vehicle, she provided evidence that it could have been sold for $5,000. [ 58 ] Ms. Batool’s request for sole custody and guardianship of Zehra, as well as sole exercise of parenting responsibilities, was supported by her description of Mr. Siddiqui as having “extremist” religious views, which he was constantly seeking to impose on Zehra. A particular concern that she expressed was that Zehra would be manipulated by him into following his views.

Orders preventing him from travelling with her and allowing Ms. Batool to do so without his permission were said to be necessary to avoid such a situation. [ 59 ] A further concern was that he had not seen or attempted to speak to Zehra since November, 2018 (although one could conclude that this weighs against any efforts by him to influence her). Based on messages that he left for Ms. Batool in October 2021, one of which included a statement that he wished to see Zehra once and “will probably go away after meeting her”, she questions his commitment to remaining in Canada.

It would be even more harmful for Zehra, she believes, if he cut off contact again after a brief reacquaintance. [ 60 ] The basis provided for spousal support was a compensatory one – arising from her primary responsibility for caring for Zehra, which restricted her ability to work, but allowed Mr. Siddiqui to do so full time.

Discussion [ 61 ] Putting aside for the moment why he did not do so, Mr. Siddiqui’s failure to file a response to family claim meant that pursuant to Rule 4-3(2) he was not entitled to notice of her application for a final order. [ 62 ] A court’s ability to set aside a final order that was obtained pursuant to Rule 10-10 in an undefended proceeding is based on s. 200(2) of the Family Law Act , which permits it to “change, suspend, or set aside” an order that was made in the absence of a party, and the Supreme Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent miscarriages of justice: Nichol v.

Nichol , 2015 BCCA 278 at paras. 27-28 . [ 63 ] At para. 35, the Court in Nichol confirmed that the test for setting aside such an order is the same as for setting aide a default judgment, as described in the frequently-cited decision of Miracle Feeds v. D. & H. Enterprises Ltd. (1979), 10 B.C.L.R. 58 (Co. Ct.) . Modified to fit the requirements of an order obtained under Rule 10-10 the requirements are that: 1) The respondent must establish that he or she did not willfully and deliberately fail to file a Response to the NOFC [Notice of Family Claim].

This inquiry is meant to focus on personal and actual intent of the respondent and not his or her counsel. 2) The respondent must establish that he or she applied to set aside the R. 10-10 final order as soon as reasonably possible after having had obtained knowledge of the R. 10-10 final order or, alternatively, must offer a reasonable explanation as to any delay in applying to set the order aside. 3) The respondent must establish that he or she has a meritorious defence or at least a defence "worthy of investigation". [ 64 ] The court added the following guidance when considering such an application: 36 The above three factors must be "established to the satisfaction of the court through affidavit material filed by or on behalf of the defendant".

To this, I add that it is always open to courts to draw any inferences supportable by the totality of circumstances of the case; it would be needlessly wasteful to require a party to establish by way of affidavit a fact that could be readily inferred from the general circumstances of the case. With this discussion in mind, I turn to application. 37 The factors set out in the Miracle Feeds decision are not meant to be applied inflexibly, nor are they immutable: see H.M.T.Q. in Right of the Province of British Columbia v. Ismail , 2007 BCCA 55 at para. 11 . The discussion by Mr.

Justice Voith in Director of Civil Forfeiture v. Doe , 2010 BCSC 940 at para. 15 in the context of the R. 17(12) of the previous Supreme Court Rules is apt: [15] ... [I]t does not follow as a matter of necessity that the failure of the defendants to expressly address each of the various requirements set out in Miracle Feeds precludes them from being successful on an application under Rule 17(12) [the rule in the previous Supreme Court Rules that permitted a party to apply to set aside default judgment]. These requirements are not immutable.

The failure or inability of a defendant to address a particular factor in Miracle Feeds is not necessarily fatal. Conversely, there may well be additional factors identified by a defendant which are relevant to its application and to the court's discretion. [ 65 ] In considering the first requirement, it is important to distinguish the fact that substituted service was approved as sufficient, and any criticisms by Mr. Siddiqui of the means that were chosen to carry it out, from the actual question of whether Mr.

Siddiqui willfully or deliberately failed to file a response, which could only be found if he had actually received the notice of family claim. On the latter point, I do not find it believable that he would have failed to check his email from April 2019 to August 2020, that the WhatsApp message would not have made its way through to either of his phone numbers, or that the copy of the notice of family claim that his son told Ms. Batool he had provided to one of his sisters (which the son would have had no reason not to be truthful about) would not have made its way to him within a reasonable time.

It is especially curious that he was able to receive the final order by WhatsApp at one of the same numbers, although he says he could not open it. I am satisfied that he received the notice of family claim at the time it was sent. His explanation of the effects on him of depression and of the deaths of his close family members are vague and unsupported by any reliable confirmatory evidence that might provide an explanation for his delay in responding to the notice.

It was not clear whether his charitable activities were intended as a further explanation for the delay, but if they were, they fall short of offering a satisfactory basis. I am satisfied that Mr. Siddiqui made a deliberate decision not to take any action after having been served. [ 66 ] His actions in applying to set aside the order once he became aware of it are less straightforward. It seems clear that he was not served with the final order until February 2021, and if flights were not available until September, which is not contradicted, then filing this application in October does not seem unreasonable.

While arranging for counsel in Canada to make the application while he was still in Pakistan might have been technically possible, the necessary arrangements to accomplish it would likely have been impractical. I find that this requirement of the test has been satisfied. [ 67 ] On the third requirement, Mr. Siddiqui also certainly has defences that are at least worthy of investigation. The most prominent one is that the order identifies withdrawals from the line of credit as family property, which Ms.

Batool was allocated an equal share of from the sale proceeds, when in fact they are debt and should have been allocated as Mr. Siddiqui’s responsibility, if a basis for doing so to under the Family Law Act could have been established: see B.S.D. v. S.K.D. , 2021 BCSC 2327 at para. 32 . In other words, while they could have been deducted from Mr. Siddiqui’s share of family property in the equalization process, they should not have been used to increase the amount of family property. [ 68 ] Beyond this, Mr. Siddiqui asserts that all of these debts were incurred with Ms.

Batool’s knowledge and consent, which would make her jointly responsible for them as family debt, if that can be demonstrated. [ 69 ] Mr. Siddiqui’s material, if it is accepted, is also capable of demonstrating that his income in 2019 and 2019 was considerably lower than has been attributed to him in the order, leading to reduced or non-existent support obligations for those years, and that the order’s allocation of custody, guardianship and parenting responsibilities, as well as the restriction on his parenting time, may not be in Zehra’s best interests. On that last issue, I do not think that Mr.

Siddiqui would have pursued parenting in this application if his intentions with respect to Zehra were as limited as suggested in his message for Ms. Batool in October.

[ 70 ] While the first requirement of the modified Miracle Feeds test has not been met here, I think that the weight to be allocated to the second and third ones, in particular the reasonable possibility that Mr. Siddiqui has been deprived of funds that would otherwise have been distributed to him, or at least used to retire a debt for which he will otherwise be responsible, and that Zehra is being deprived of a level of parenting involvement that would be in her best interests, mean that setting aside the order is required in the interests of justice. To be clear, Mr.

Siddiqui’s inaction after being served does him no credit, but the manner in which the final order disposed of his financial interests and his parenting role is so comprehensive, and has suffcient arguable flaws, that it would be unjust to prevent him from arguing in favour of a more balanced outcome. [ 71 ] Accordingly, I order that the final order of August 20, 2020 is set aside. Mr. Siddiqui will have 30 days from the date of this judgment to file a response to family claim, and counterclaim, if any. [ 72 ] Ms.

Batool will forthwith return the funds that were distributed to her under the final order to her counsel, to be held in trust pending the outcome of this action. Within 60 days she will provide an accounting to Mr. Siddiqui’s counsel of the disposition of any funds that she is unable to return, including the current whereabouts of those funds and the particulars of any property purchased using them. [ 73 ] I do not consider it appropriate to make any final orders with respect to property division, support or parenting, in substitution for the orders that have been set aside.

The conflicting evidence on these issues requires adjudication in a forum suitable to the granting of a final order – either a trial or a

summary trial. As a result, the balance of the relief he has sought in this application is dismissed. Counsel can communicate with each other to obtain the necessary disclosure for such a proceeding in the usual way. [ 74 ] Some interim orders are required: • Mr. Siddiqui lists his current income as zero in his October 2021. I consider it appropriate to impute to him the annual earnings in his last Canadian tax return, filed in 2019, of $40,169. It seems obvious on the current material that he is capable of earning this amount. Accordingly, he will pay child support to Ms.

Batool for Zehra in the amount of $377.62 per month, effective the date of this application. He will also advise Ms. Batool when he gains employment and of the location of the employment and rate at which he is paid. • It seems premature to establish a parenting routine for Mr. Siddiqui with Zehra until the effect of their time apart on her comfort level can be assessed. Therefore, he will initially exercise parenting time with her for two hours per week, at a time and in a location approved of by Ms. Batool, and supervised by a person approved by Ms. Batool.

The supervision is to ensure that Zehra does not experience any distress during the parenting time and that the subject matter of their discussions is always in her best interests. Mr. Siddiqui is not to remove Zehra from the location of the parenting time designated by Ms. Batool. Notwithstanding the general undesirability of successive applications for interim orders, it would be appropriate for Mr. Siddiqui to make an application to expand his parenting time and reduce the restrictions on it, if the initial parenting is shown to be in Zehra’s best interest. • Ms.

Batool will exercise the parenting responsibilities for Zehra set out in s. 41 of the Family Law Act , except that Mr. Siddiqui will be jointly entitled to exercise the responsibility under ss. (

j) of “requesting and receiving from third parties health, education or other information respecting the child”. Ms. Batool will advise Mr. Siddiqui of any major issue relating to Zehra’s health, education or general well-being and, where it is feasible to do so, consider his views before making the decision. • The parties will attend a judicial case conference on the earliest date on which their counsel are available. The process for resolving the disputed issues should be organized as efficiently as possible. [ 75 ] Mr. Siddiqui has had substantial success on this application, and will be entitled to his costs of it in the cause. “Schultes J.”