Rahman v. Ramnarine, 2024 ONCA 30

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Rahman v. Ramnarine, 2024 ONCA 30 DATE: 20240115 DOCKET: COA-23-CV-1009 Hourigan, Trotter and Copeland JJ.A. BETWEEN Mijanur Rahman Respondent (Appellant) and Sharon Ramnarine Applicant (Respondent) Mijanur Rahman, acting in person No one appearing for the respondent Heard and released orally: January 12, 2024 On appeal from the order of Justice Melanie Kraft of the Superior Court of Justice on August 29, 2023. REASONS FOR DECISION [ 1 ] The appellant appeals an order granting a divorce application brought by the respondent.

The application judge further ordered that the respondent shall have decision-making responsibility for the two children of the marriage (currently aged 20 and 10). [ 2 ] The respondent’s lawyer served the Notice of Application for divorce, dated March 15, 2022, by regular mail in August of 2022. The appellant did not acknowledge receipt of the application. He submits that he received the envelope only more recently, in June of 2023. [ 3 ] The appellant submits that the order should be set aside because he was not properly served with the Notice of Application. He further submits that the divorce is fraudulent.

He relies on his own affidavit in support of his claim that the signature on the application is not the respondent’s, and that the Canada Post stamps and bar code on the envelope enclosing the Notice of Application are inauthentic and/or irregular. [ 4 ] We see no basis to set aside the divorce order. [ 5 ] The appellant has not provided any credible evidence to prove that the Notice of Application is fraudulent.

He asks us to draw our own comparison between the respondent’s signature as guarantor of his passport application (dated June 20, 2023) with the signature on her Notice of Application (dated February 18, 2022). We are unable to make this finding in the absence of expert evidence. In any event, the signatures appear to be quite similar. Moreover, there is no support for the appellant’s submissions concerning postage irregularities on the envelope that contained the Notice of Application. [ 6 ] In dismissing this appeal, we also note that the parties have lived separate and apart since October 27, 2014.

Moreover, since November 16, 2015, by virtue of an order made in the Ontario Court of Justice, the respondent has had “sole custody” of (now referred to as sole “decision-making responsibility” for) both children, with reasonable access to the appellant. The divorce order is not inconsistent with this order. [ 7 ] The appeal is dismissed. The respondent did not appear. There will be no costs order. "C.W. Hourigan J.A.” “Gary Trotter J.A.” “J. Copeland J.A.”