Lawyers who appear in court regularly — and whose decisions get reported — are lawyers who push the boundaries of the law for their clients. These are ours.
Persaud Hussain LLP has been appearing in Ontario courts since 2011 — at the Ontario Court of Justice, Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, and the Court of Appeal. Litigation is not a sideline for us. It is what we do.
A reported decision means a judge found the legal arguments significant enough to put on the record. Our published cases reflect clients whose positions we fought for without hesitation — advancing arguments that now inform how other courts approach the same issues. We are not afraid of a hard fight — and when it comes to protecting people against domestic violence, we do not back down.
Knowing how to navigate a courtroom — how judges think, how to structure an argument under pressure, how to respond when things don’t go to plan — comes only from showing up, case after case. That experience belongs to your file from day one.
The mother — a Venezuelan-born woman who only spoke Spanish — had been sponsored to Canada by the father. After fleeing to a women’s shelter with the couple’s two young children in June 2023, following a police complaint of assault, the father brought a motion seeking primary care of the children. He relied heavily on extensive CAMH mental health records, arguing the mother’s psychiatric history made her an unfit primary caregiver. A CAMH clinician had noted, however, that the mother’s presentation “may be more so in keeping with delusional disorder” but also that “it is possible that she is simply a victim of emotional and verbal abuse.” The father had reportedly threatened to have the mother and her son deported — a threat the medical records document as a source of profound distress.
The court dismissed the father’s motion in its entirety. Justice Jarvis found that while there were legitimate mental health concerns, there was no credible evidence that the mother was not a good and loving parent or that she could not appropriately care for the children while taking her prescribed medications. Critically, the court recognized that her mental health struggles were not proof of unfitness — they were, in large part, the product of her circumstances: no family in Canada, no income, no assets, uncertain immigration status, and a relationship in which her own doctors suspected emotional and verbal abuse. The children remained in their mother’s primary care at the shelter. The father was ordered to pay $2,266 per month in child support and $2,176 per month in spousal support, and the mother was also awarded $2,500 in costs.
This case concerned a jurisdictional dispute over where parenting proceedings should be heard. Shortly before commencing her application in Markham, the mother had unilaterally relocated the child from Ottawa, where the family had lived. The father filed his own application in Ottawa. The court was asked to determine whether the child’s habitual residence remained in Ottawa for the purposes of the Children’s Law Reform Act. The court found that the mother’s relocation did not alter the child’s habitual residence, as the father had not acquiesced and had acted without undue delay in commencing proceedings. The mother was ordered to return the child to Ottawa within ten days, with police enforcement authorized if she failed to comply. The decision reinforces the principle that a parent cannot unilaterally relocate a child to manufacture a more favourable jurisdiction.
This brief endorsement from the Divisional Court addresses a procedural motion brought by the respondent in an underlying family law matter. The Divisional Court, which sits as an appellate court for certain family proceedings, issued its ruling in writing. The matter concerned questions of practice and procedure arising from the litigation below.
This costs endorsement arose from contested matrimonial proceedings in which success was divided between the parties. After hearing written submissions from both sides, the court considered the outcome of the litigation and the conduct of the parties in determining the appropriate costs award. Where success is divided in family law proceedings, courts have discretion to apportion costs accordingly rather than awarding them in full to one side.
This endorsement concerns an urgent motion request in a parenting matter. The court addressed the need for expeditious case management and considered the circumstances giving rise to the urgency of the motion. Urgent motion requests in parenting cases require the moving party to demonstrate that the matter cannot wait for a regularly scheduled hearing, particularly where the safety or welfare of a child may be implicated.
This costs endorsement followed contested parenting proceedings. After hearing submissions from both parties, the court considered the relevant factors under the Family Law Rules in assessing the appropriate costs order, including the outcome of the proceeding, the conduct of the parties, and the reasonableness of the positions taken. Costs in family law are discretionary and courts balance the principle of indemnification against the need to encourage reasonable behaviour in litigation.
This matter addressed issues of child support, spousal support, and parenting arrangements following the breakdown of the marriage. The court heard the matter on October 24, 2018, and considered the parties’ respective financial circumstances in determining appropriate support obligations. Courts in such proceedings apply the Federal Child Support Guidelines to determine quantum of child support and apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines as a reference for spousal support, while separately assessing the best interests of the children in respect of parenting arrangements.
This matter involved an application concerning child support arrears and retroactive support. The court heard the matter on September 29, 2022, and addressed the respondent’s obligations with respect to outstanding support payments. Retroactive support orders require courts to consider the reasons for the delay in seeking support, the payor’s conduct, the circumstances of the child, and any hardship a retroactive award might cause. Arrears enforcement proceedings similarly engage considerations of ability to pay, the child’s needs, and the overall fairness of the outstanding amounts.
This frequently cited decision addressed the appropriate costs award following three unsuccessful motions brought by the mother. The father sought full recovery costs of $23,995. The court reduced the award to $10,000, applying the principle that costs must be reasonable and proportionate — not simply a reflection of the total amount billed. In reaching that figure, the court considered the mother’s challenging personal circumstances, including a high-risk pregnancy, the procedural deficiencies in her approach, and the behaviour of both parties throughout the proceedings. The decision is a useful authority on the limits of full recovery costs in family law and the role of financial circumstances in determining quantum.
This case required the court to determine the valuation date for the equalization of net family property — a threshold issue that determined both the financial outcome for the parties and whether the husband’s claim was barred by the limitation period. The husband proposed December 15, 2015 as the valuation date; the wife proposed February 14, 2012. Neither date was accepted. Based on a written declaration made by the husband that demonstrated his intent to end the marriage, the court set the valuation date as August 18, 2013. The decision involved a careful assessment of credibility, as both parties had given conflicting accounts of when the marriage broke down. The court weighed objective evidence and common sense against the husband’s history of deceit and the wife’s inconsistent testimony, ultimately anchoring the valuation date to the most reliable contemporaneous evidence available.