Petition updateStop Officials Misusing Power_Every Child Matters, & Respecting Religions Must Be DEEDSPart THREE _ Applicant's Motion-To Cross the Father's Motions _ Set to be Heard on July 11, 2025
Lubna Yousef AldahlehLondon, Ontario, Canada
Jul 3, 2025

To continue the court material from the previous post, …

CONTINUING/6. Lubna Aldahleh - Amended Form 14A -sworn-  Affidavit to Support Motion of Notice Dated 20-FEB-2025_ APPLICANT - ALDAHLEH - 12-MAY-2025 

7. FACTUM for Motions (except OCL Motion) _ APPLICANT - ALDAHLEH - 27-JUNE-2025 (TO BE CONTINUED)

**************************

Continuing Applicant's Affidavit, Lubna Aldahleh, dated MAy 12, 2025.

45. https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par271, [271] I find that the potential serious risk to the children is the father’s propensity to anger, and B. and L.’s resistance to him.

A. SOME OF THE VIOLENCE FROM THE FATHER IN KUWAIT:

  i. Events of May 14, 2021

46. https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par134, [134] The mother again attended at the Vision Centre with the children on May 14, 2021. It was Eid. B. was crying and refused to go with the father. Mr. Al Qalaf came outside of the Vision Centre and told the mother to wait with B. inside. M. and L. went with the father. After waiting inside for approximately 1.5 hours, Mr. Al Qalaf returned and told the mother to go to her car and leave B. at the Centre. The mother did as she was asked. Shortly thereafter, she saw L. and B. come out of the Centre, both crying and upset. The two children ran to the mother’s car and got inside. The mother then went into the Centre to ask “mercy for the children” from Mr. Al Qalaf. Based on his response to her, the mother was afraid that a false report would be prepared to the effect that she was a “neglectful mother”, so that she would lose custody. The mother took a video with her phone to show, if needed, that the father kept M. At 5:00 p.m., M. was returned.

47. https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par135, [135] According to the father, on May 14, 2021, all three children were happy to go with him. Mr. Al Qalaf helped him take the children to his vehicle. It was the mother who intervened by claiming B. did not want to go. They all went inside the Centre, where the mother engaged in a verbal argument with centre staff and a security guard. She was asked to leave. The mother took L. and B. with her to her car. The mother then tried to take M. from the father. This resulted in a security guard trying to intervene. The father gave M. to the mother.

48. Court’s finding with respect to the events of May 14, 2021 https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par136, [136] I find that the mother’s evidence regarding the events of May 14, 2021 to be more credible than the father’s. The mother provided significantly more detail regarding the events of that day than did the father. These details were consistent. The father’s observation that the children were happy to go with him is inconsistent with the uncontroverted evidence of what had happened previously. B. was reluctant to go with his father. The mother’s version of events is more consistent with all of the other evidence in relation to these children’s demeanour concerning parenting time. The evidence does not explain why the father needed the help of Mr. Al Qalaf to bring the children to his car if they were willing to go. I also take into account that there is a text message from the mother on May 14, 2021 that indicates she will receive M. at 5:00 p.m. That appears to be contemporaneously prepared evidence that the father did have M. with him, contrary to his assertion. I have also had regard to the father’s statement dated September 14, 2021, which is consistent with the mother’s version of events.[12]

 ii. Events of May 21, 2021

49. https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par137, [137] On May 21, 2021, the mother attended the Vision Centre with the three children for an access exchange. B. and L. refused to go with the father. M. did go with the father.

50. https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par138, [138] Mr. Al Qalaf and the father, together with another employee of the Centre, were beside the mother’s car shouting at B. and L., who looked afraid. The mother called the Centre’s hotline to speak with its manager.

51. https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par139, [139] The manager and the mother were able to convince L. to go with the father along with M.

52. https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par140, [140] Some time later that day, the father called the mother and told her that L. wanted to return home early, at 2:00 p.m. As requested, the mother went to the Centre early. When she picked up the children, she took a photo to show she was there and exchanged the children. She suspected that the father would allege she did not come at 5:00 p.m. to pick up the children. Mr. Al Qalaf and another employee demanded the mother give over her phone. She refused. The police were called, came to the Centre and told her to go to the police station. They did not tell the mother what she had done wrong.

53. https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par141, [141] The mother went home with the children. She was called by the police to attend at the police station. She went there with the three children. When she arrived, she saw the father laughing with Mr. Al Qalaf and the other employee. Mr. Al Qalaf verbally abused B., who was crying. The father did not intervene on B.’s behalf. The father asked the mother to sign a document giving him custody. He said that if she did, she could return home quietly. She refused. The mother was then arrested and held overnight.

54. https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par142, [142] The evidence of B. and L., not denied by the father, was that when the father took the children from the police station that afternoon, he stopped along the way to purchase a cake. The children perceived this purchase as a celebration of what had happened to their mother.

55. https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par143, [143] The next day, with the assistance of a lawyer, the mother was released. [13] The father, who had kept the children overnight, brought the three of them to the police station and they left with the mother.

56. https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par144, [144] While the mother was in police custody, an employee of the Vision Centre sent a WhatsApp message to her phone. She did not receive it until the next day. The message stated that “your child visitation file has been permanently closed, so please don’t attend to the centre at all by order of counsellor/Saleh Al-Rafk.”

57. https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par145, [145] After reviewing this message, the mother did not attend at the Vision Centre with the children. She understood that the services offered there ended.

58. https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par146, [146] The father’s evidence is that the file was temporarily closed.

59. https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par147, [147] I do not accept the father’s evidence. It is contradicted by the WhatsApp message from the Vision Centre to the mother.

60. The mother applied for permission to leave Kuwait.

CONSEDER THE FOREIGN ORDERS BEFORE MOVING TO CANADA WHICH THERE WERE ACTIVE AT THE TIME OF LEAVING KUWAIT NAD ACTIVE AT THE TIME THE CHILDREN AND THE APPLICANT MOTHER MOVER TO SETTLE IN CANADA

This submission of Applicant Mother party in this matter, swear this affidavit in support of my Form 14 Notice of Motion dated 20 February 2025.

********************************************

7. APPLICANT'S FACTUM for Motions by the Respondent for CONTEMPT ORDER  and MOTIONs dated Feb 20, 2025_APPLICANT - Dated June 27, 2025

THIS FACTUM OF THE APPLICANT (LUBNA ALDAHLEH)

For Motion of CONTEMPT ORDER and Motion Filed by Respondent Father dated Feb 17, 2025, and Applicant’s Motion dated Feb 20, 2025,– In addition to separate FACTUM for Removing OCL  motions set on the same 
(Special Appointment Motion Hearing: July 11, 2025)

PART I – INTRODUCTION
1. In addition to my affidavits and evidence filed to support my positions. I filed what I had finished with this Factum Form. Concerning about taking the children’s passport order, which is seems that is order without any legal basis, specially after confirming the Applicant’s innocence before the SJC, judgment dated Feb 16, 2024. There is No risk of the children, and the mother did not abuse any order. But rather the fraudulent from the judges and lawyers to manipulate this file, is my Lord’s plan to proof the hatred against Muslim. 

2. I am, Lubna Aldahleh, the Applicant Mother who files this factum in regarding the Notice of CONTEMPT ORDER  and MOTIONs dated Feb 20, 2025 filed by the Respondent Father on Feb 17, 2025, which seeks an order finding the Applicant in contempt of court together with such ancillary relief as this Honorable Court may deem just. The Applicant Mother opposes the motions, maintaining that the relief requested is contrary to the children’s best interests, legally unfounded, and procedurally abusive. In accordance with the deadline set by Justice J. Bezaire’s order of February 26, 2025, the Applicant Mother served and filed her responding affidavit and Notice of Motion on June 2, 2025.

3. As a Canadian citizen, I am proud to belong to a country whose pillars are respect for the supremacy of ALLAH and respect for the rule of law, and which affirms that NO ONE is above the law—not a judge, a lawyer, a government official, or anyone else.

4. My pride flows firstly from my religion-Islam, the teachings of my beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and then the legacy of my ancestors—their morals, values, loyalty, and resistance to oppression—all of which spring from their trust in ALLAH. Just as ALLAH commands in the Qur’an (The Clear Quran series – Al-Furqaan Foundation- Surah 60- The Test of Faith (Al-Mumtahanah- phrases 8&9: (God does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely God loves those who are fair. (8) God only forbids you from befriending those who have fought you for “your faith” driven you out of your homes, or supported “others” in doing so. And whoever takes them as friends, then it is they who are the “true” wrongdoers.), this is how I respond to anyone who insults my faith and beliefs, or who violates the laws of my country, fair-minded Canada, which firmly opposes hatred toward Muslims. 

  • a) The Clear Quran series – Al-Furqaan Foundation- Surah 22- The Pilgrimage (Al-Hajj- phrases 38: (Indeed, God defends those who believe. Surely God does not like whoever is deceitful, ungrateful).
  • b) The Clear Quran series – Al-Furqaan Foundation- Surah 4 An-Nisa’(Women), verse : 148 (ALLAH does not like negative thoughts to be voiced—except by those who have been wronged. ALLAH is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.)
  • c) The Clear Quran series – Al-Furqaan Foundation- Surah Al-Ahzab 33 (The Enemy Alliance), verse 36 (It is not for a believing man or woman—when God and His Messenger decree a matter—to have any other choice in that matter.850 Indeed, whoever disobeys God and His Messenger has clearly gone “far” astray.) - *850: Meaning, if God makes a ruling in the Quran or the Prophet -peace be upon him- makes a ruling, then a Muslim is not allowed to seek judgment from anyone else, nor follow their own desires.
  • d) The Clear Quran series – Al-Furqaan Foundation- Surah 4 An-Nisa’(Women), verse :59: (O believers! Obey ALLAH and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to ALLAH and His Messenger—if you truly believe in ALLAH and the Last Day. That is the best and fairest resolution.)
  • e) The Clear Quran series – Al-Furqaan Foundation- Surah Al-Imran 3 (The Family of Imran), verse 173-175: (Those who were warned, ‘Your enemies have mobilized their forces against you, so fear them,’ the warning only made them grow stronger in faith and they replied ‘ALLAH alone is sufficient “as an aid” for us, and He is the best Protector. (173) So they returned with God’s favours and grace suffering  no harm. For they sought to please God. And surely God is the Lord of infinite bounty(174) That warning was only from Satan, trying to prompt you to fear his followers. So do not fear them; fear Me if you are “true” believers.(175)).
  • f) The Clear Quran series – Al-Furqaan Foundation- Surah Ghafir 3 (The Forgiver), verse 51: (We certainly help Our messengers and the believers—both in this worldly life and on the Day the witnesses will stand forth “for testimony”.)
  • g) Our great prophet – peace be upon him-said in the ḥadith praises courageous truth-telling before those in power, even when they are unjust.: “Which Jihad is best?” He -peace be upon him- replied: “The best form of Jihad is to speak a word of truth in front of a tyrant ruler.”— Reported by Abu Dawud (4344), al-Tirmidhi (2174), Ibn Majah (4011), and Aḥmad; graded sound (ḥasan–ṣaḥiḥ) by several scholars

5. What the mother and her children in this matter strive for is to be the people our Creator, ALLAH Almighty, wants them to be—just as envisioned by our greatest leader, the Prophet Muḥammad (peace be upon him), and as their believing ancestors raised them: committed to their faith and Sharia’ah, striving to be true believers, not Muslims in name only. This means it is their obligation to resist oppression; no matter the difficulties or the cost, their religion and faith are non-negotiable—they are a red line that no one may cross. The mother and her children will never give up, nor will they allow anyone to silence them.

6. Then, this esteemed government encourages its people to stand up against oppression and does its utmost to support them through various channels. However, some government employees regrettably disregard the law, abusing their authority to exploit vulnerable children, women, and other human beings for personal gain—often motivated by bias against certain religions, cultures, or genders. Such conduct betrays both the teachings of ALLAH and the principles of Canadian justice, and it must be exposed and challenged through the legal and civic mechanisms Canada provides.

7. Consistent with these principles, I have taken action by filing applications and pleadings in this Court, filed claims to make investigations by government organizations; however, ignoring the crystal clear evidence regarding the fraudulent and manipulations in Muslims matters is a serious concern. Also, by launching a public petition on Change.org (https://chng.it/7dV7zn2cDY to raise awareness and gather support. These steps reflect my commitment to lawful, peaceful resistance against injustice and discrimination.

8. I ask this Honourable Court to examine closely how certain judges—both in my case and in others—have steered proceedings toward a pre-planned outcome: they have ignored genuine evidence, fabricated false evidence, and taken advantage of people’s fear of challenging judicial abuse because judges wield great power and influence.

9. This does not mean everyone is silent, nor that the government can ignore reality. The Canadian Senate’s report confirming anti-Muslim discrimination in government agencies did not cover the courts—perhaps because of fear of exposing “judicial violence,” or because officials tasked with investigating court corruption deliberately hid the complaints and proof submitted against the justice system.

10. I respectfully request that this Honourable Court hear and determine, at the special-appointment sitting on 11 July 2025, all of the motions (four motions – set to be heard at the same date). The applicant mother cross the respondent father’s motions by filing the proper Notice of Motion Forms supporting by Affidavits.

11. Since 2022, the date started this matter at the Superior Court of Justice, in Ontario Canada, the applicant mother has supplied every piece of evidence that will accompany this request, along with the complete court record. She has also resubmitted the key evidence most relevant to this case.

12. The Applicant is the mother, Lubna Aldahleh a Canadian Citizen (born in Syria in 1984), of three children: Baraa Zayed- first Canadian Generation (born in Scarborough in 2010), Lujain Zayed- first Canadian Generation (born in Scarborough in 2012), (born in Jordan in 2018, while the father was in Kuwait), all of whom reside primarily with their mother “since birth” and reside with her full-time in Ontario pursuant to the final judgment of 16-days trial of Justice Tobin dated February 16, 2024, Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0>

13. In addition, Mariam Zayed’s Canadian visitor-visa status and accompanying permanent-residence application have been on hold since 2022 because the father objected; immigration authorities are awaiting a final court order confirming the mother’s sole decision-making authority, which will show that she needs no consent or signature from the father—opposition he uses to prolong his abuse of the children and their mother. >>>>Brief Exhibit (B)-04 – dated May 28, 2025, to support Applicant’s REPLY affidavit dated June 27, 2025

RE: the children’s welfare and interests

14. Since October 2024, the child Mariam Zayed’s Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) has been invalid: the Ministry of Health refused to renew it because her permanent-residence file at IRCC—flagged since 2022 amid this litigation and the father’s opposition—remains unresolved. A ministry letter dated 14 May 2025 confirms the final refusal, leaving Mariam’s Canadian status and health-care coverage in serious jeopardy.>>>>>Brief Exhibit (B)-03 – dated May 14, 2025, to support Applicant’s REPLY affidavit dated June 27, 2025

15. RE: the children’s welfare and interests

16. The Respondent is the father, Zakaria Zayed (born in Kuwait in 1979), based on his material, resides in Kuwait with his second wife and two children, the new wife have never ever met, in person or even online, the children who are the subject of these proceedings by the father’s insisting; I have no up-to-date information about his exact address or any changes in his family circumstances. The Respondent has no valid immigration status in Canada and is now attempting to re-litigate issues that were conclusively resolved after a 16-day trial. Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), at para 266, <https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par266> [266]   If the children return to Kuwait ……… He and his new wife have a child together. There is no evidence that the children have a relationship with or even know the father’s wife……

17. This case did not originate in Ontario. Rather, all substantive issues were finalized in Kuwait between 2019 and 2021, with both parties actively participating in proceedings before the Justice Court and the Court of Appeal. The Respondent Father hired lawyers in Kuwait, and the mother represented herself before the criminal, civil, and family courts in Kuwait with fulfill understanding of the process and the fraudulent from the father’s side, I respectfully ask that the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario grant me a full listening and not deny my right to be heard simply because I am neither a lawyer nor an expert, as occurred in the past; I also hold the official, original foreign orders issued in Kuwait, which I am prepared to present! 

18. Final orders were issued in favour of the mother, based on the best interests of the children and in accordance with the principles of Sharia Law as applied to Sunni Muslims. Please review at  Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0>  in general, and the paragraphs: 126, 129, 189, 190, 17, 36, 61, 62, 66, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 99, 141, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, & 150.

19. Please review the parties’ “Credibility” at Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0> from paragraph #10 to paragraph #42.

20. On July 12, 2021, the mother lawfully relocated to Canada with the three children in accordance with those final legal decisions. Additionally, the mother was unable to remain in Kuwait due to immigration regulations. Following the divorce, the Respondent refused to waive his sponsorship, thereby preventing the mother from transitioning from family-sponsored residency to a work permit. As a Jordanian national without independent legal status in Kuwait, she was compelled to leave the country with her three children, who are not Kuwaiti citizens but rather hold Canadian and Jordanian citizenship.

21. After moving to Canada, the mother learned she owed roughly CA $30,000 to the CRA. She traced this debt to fraud dating back to 2010—the year her son Baraa was born—when the respondent and his Canadian associates impersonated/forged her signature on multiple benefit applications, falsely claiming she and the children were living in Ontario to collect government payments, even though the entire family was actually in Kuwait. Please review the judgement at 
Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0>  specifically paragraphs: 

  • [30] When asked about a spousal support collection matter directly, the father had difficulty answering questions put to him. He provided a narrative that had little obvious connection to the question asked. Another example of this was when he was asked about visits between himself and the child, B., after the parties separated.
  • [31] The father struggled in his answers in response to evidence of his inappropriate discipline of the children. In this regard, his evidence was not consistent with the documentary evidence in many respects.
  • [32] The father was evasive in answering questions about renewing his Ontario driver’s license when he was not resident in Ontario.
  • [33] He did not answer a question put to him about his American social security card.
  • [34] The father’s denial of knowledge of the payment of a child tax benefit from Canada Revenue Agency was not believable. The documents sent by the government were addressed to the same address the father used when he renewed his Ontario driver’s license.

22. After the mother moved to Canada, she followed the recommendation of the Canadian embassy in the Arabian Gulf and the Immigration Officer in the airport who was referred to stamp the entre for the family, I applied for permanent residence for the child Mariam. Once every step was complete, IRCC asked for the child’s passport. In August 2022, the mother was surprised to receive an official letter from IRCC asking for a Canadian custody order, wanting to know the final custody decision. It was clear that the father opposed the immigration application in order to block the child’s PR, hoping to have Mariam removed from Canada and thereby force the mother to leave as well. He claimed that I abducted the children, but not at the same time of leaving Kuwait, but rather he was waiting to finish his fraudulent to cancel the mother’s custody which was active at the time of leaving Kuwait.

23. Although the 16-day trial before this Honourable Court ended on 16 February 2024, the father—by amending his Answer and through the motions now set for 11 July 2025—is re-raising the very issues that were already decided. His tactics ignore the final trial judgment and revive those matters in new guises, needlessly prolonging the proceedings and causing further harm to the mother and the children.

PART III– STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ANALYSIS / FORIGN ORDERS BETWEEN PARTIES:

24. I respectfully inform this Honourable Court that, before the Applicant Mother was deported from Kuwait, “more than fifty procedural steps in highly complicated matters”—encompassing family cases and criminal-misdemeanour proceedings—were heard and determined there between 2019 and 2021, and every judgment was in her favour. To streamline this motion and conserve the Court’s time, I propose to submit only the final orders that relate directly to this matter concerning the children. Should the Court require the full set of official documents and a detailed explanation, I respectfully seek leave to exceed the usual limits on affidavits and exhibits, as thousands of documents (the original in Arabic and their certified translation to English) have already been filed in the proceedings before the Superior Court of Justice and would need to be reproduced here along with additional commentary on the Canadian procedural steps. Please review Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), at para 8, <https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par8> under paragraph #8_ sub-paragraph (5)     The parties filed extensive documentary evidence. The mother’s CaseLines file contained 3,600 pages. The father’s CaseLines file contained 740 pages. The Children’s Lawyer’s CaseLines file contained 1,264 pages. The amicus' CaseLines file was 242 pages. At the end of the trial, there were 106 numbered exhibits and 31 lettered exhibits. The volume of evidence increased the time it took for each party to be examined in chief and then cross-examined…………..etc.

25. Please be advised that every document attached as an exhibit for the Applicant is a notarized copy certified by a Licensed Paralegal and Notary Public for the Province of Ontario. Each original order issued in Kuwait was first authenticated by the Ministry of Justice, Administrative Affairs Department – Translation Section, State of Kuwait. The notarized copies carry the “Executive Form” endorsement, which authorizes the competent enforcement authority to act immediately—and, where the law permits, to use force—when execution is required. Finally, the Consular Affairs Division of the Kuwaiti Ministry of Foreign Affairs placed its own seal and signature on the documents; this attestation is supplied to enable recognition and enforcement of the Kuwaiti judgment in foreign jurisdictions, in accordance with the legal procedures applicable in each country.

26. Please be advised that, pursuant to Article 43 of Kuwait Law No. 5 of 1961 on the Regulation of Legal Relations Involving a Foreign Element, the Respondent Father “insists” that the law of his nationality—Jordanian Personal Status Law No. 15 of 2019—governs the Kuwaiti proceedings between the parties, including the resulting final orders. This position is expressly noted in the reasons for judgment; certified excerpts of those reasons will be placed before this Honourable Court beneath each order. (Article 43 of Law No. 5 of 1961 organizing the legal relations of foreign element “5/1961”- The father’s nationality law shall apply in the matters of guardianship and custody.) Note: A certified copy of Kuwaiti Law No. 5 of 1961 Organising the Legal Relations of a Foreign Element (“Law 5/1961”) has already been filed in support of the Applicant Mother’s reply affidavit (27June 2025), which replies to the Respondent Father’s affidavit dated 2 June 2025 and addresses her Notice of Motion dated 20 February 2025 as well as her amended affidavit sworn 12 May 2025. Both motions set to be heard at the same day of the special appointment on July 11, 2025. If this Honorable Court find it necessary, I respectfully request permission to add the copies of the foreign laws to this motion, and would be most grateful for the Court’s consideration.

27. Brief Exhibit “B,” filed separately from—but in support of—the Applicant Mother’s General Affidavit (Form 14A, sworn 2 June 2025), contains certified copies of the final Kuwaiti orders on which she relies in her cross-motion responding to the Respondent Father’s motion dated 17 February 2025. Those orders remained “active and final” as of 10 July 2021, the date on which the Applicant Mother and the three children were deported from Kuwait. The following tabs are attached to this brief exhibit and support my position:

28. ALL THE FINAL ORDERS issued in Kuwait between both parties were issued by applying Article (43) of the LAW NO. (5) OF 1961_organizing the legal relations of FOREIGN ELEMENT (5/1961) “The father’s nationality law shall apply in the matters of guardianship and custody.”. Based on the insistence of the father and based on his nationality. All the final orders at the time of leaving Kuwait confirms that “Based on the aforesaid, and it was approved for the court upon reviewing the case papers and documents that the father, Zakaria Zayed, is a Jordanian National, who insisted in applying the Jordanian Personal Status Law, and as he submitted in his applications in Kuwait, an official copy of the Jordanian Personal Status Law No. 15/2019 by the father, ALL the matters urge the court to decide applying the Jordanian Personal Status Law in all the disputes as attached in the applicant exhibits as evidences – Please review the Final Orders before leaving Kuwait submitted in the Applicant’s exhibits as following numbers:

  • a) Applicant’s custody FINAL order No. 2857/2019 Hawalli Family Court /8 dated 11 February 2020 – ACTIVE at the time of leaving Kuwait. By applying Article (43) of the Kuwaiti  Law No. (5) of 1961_organizing the legal relations of foreign element (5/1961) - the court to decide applying the Jordanian Personal Status Law No. 15/2019 in all the disputes based on that, Zakaria Zayed, is a Jordanian National, who insisted in applying the Jordanian Personal Status Law.
  • b) Tab 17 attached in brief exhibits to support applicant’s affidavit sworn 2 June 2025, is a certified copy of the final custody order issued by the Hawalli Family Court, Branch 8, State of Kuwait, on 11 February 2020 in Case No. 2857/2019 (Lubna Yousef Abdel Rahman Aldahleh v. Zakaria A. M. Zayed). The court decided: To approve the custody of the plaintiff / Lubna Yousef Abdel Rahman Aldahleh on her children (Baraa - Lujain - Mariam) from the Defendant / Zakaria A. M. Zayed, and the court obligated the defendant with the fees an amount of 10 K.D. for attorney's fees. No appeal was filed within the 30-day statutory period, rendering the order final and enforceable; it remained active and final on the date of deporting from Kuwait on 10 July 2021, and the Applicant relies on it in support of her cross-motion responding to the Respondent Father’s motion dated 17 February 2025.
  • c) Applicant’s Decision -Making Responsibility FINAL order No. 81/2020 Hawalli Civil  Family Court- January 2021 - ACTIVE at the time of leaving Kuwait. By applying Article (43) of the Kuwaiti  Law No. (5) of 1961_organizing the legal relations of foreign element (5/1961)  the court to decide applying the Jordanian Personal Status Law No. 15/2019 in all the disputes based on that, Zakaria Zayed, is a Jordanian National, who insisted in applying the Jordanian Personal Status Law.
  • Whereas as for the subject of appeal, law No. 15 of 2019 concerning the Jordanian Personal Status law shall be applicable for considering it the law of nationality of both parties regarding the educational guardianship. It is established at the provision of Article 184 that (a) Pursuant to the provisions of custody, the guardian shall supervise the affairs of child-in-custody and shall undertake to select the type and place of education at the place of residence of the guardian and it is not permitted to transfer the child-in-custody from her place of residence unless after taking her approval, otherwise for the necessary to verify the interest of child-in-custody. (b) The guardian shall take care of the child-custody's affairs concerning guidance and caring. Article 223, pursuant to Article 14 of this law stipulates on that the guardian of the child shall be his father then his grandfather then the court or that person assigned by the court. Article 228 stipulates on the court shall automatically or based on the request of obtaining the guardianship of the guardian, otherwise the registry thereof in case of the availability of the grounds for that, it is established at the judiciary of court of cassation that assessing whether there is an arbitrariness by the stakeholder in using his right or not shall be one of the matters of fact, independently concluded by the trial court whenever summarizing them is palatable. whereas it is established from the documents and the summary of the court there from that the appellant shall be the guardian on his children (Baraa, Luiain & Mariam), then he shall supervise their affairs and further educate and guide them to a certain type of education, yet such right is subjected to the general rule contained in Article 30 of the civil law like the remaining rights which stipulates on not deviating the purpose of education or it social function. This shall mean that each stakeholder shall obtain the judgment of eligibility to take the procedures for registering the child-in-custody in one of the schools whenever appearing arbitrariness to prove the right, particularly that such right is not severe, yet it is restricted by good consideration and the achievement of interest of the children. The judge, being the owner of public guardianship, shall monitor the owners of private guardianships including the father over his children and may negate such guardianship in case of exceeding the limits of his guardianship, in a manner prejudicing with the interest of children. In addition, the court's obsession and greatest concern in deciding on the issue is what is achieved by the interest of the children in custody and their right to education and not to be affected and disrupted . Whereas this and the respondent has been the guardian of the aforementioned children under the judgment No. 2857/2019 Family and she has been liable for upbringing and guiding them regarding their health and morals and this includes their education. She has requested her entitlement to transfer them, register them in schools, identify and receive their passports and civil cards, and issue a lost replacement before the official authorities, including the necessity of ern bling them to meet the requirements of such custody. Then their interest is achieved by running their affairs with the official authorities without interruption, which is the supreme goal so that they will not be harmed by the disagreements of the children's parents, which have resulted in wavering cases between them in the courts and the transfer of children from their school without agreement between the two parties and consideration of their interest by transfer. In addition, the court found from the report of the community police that the two children (Baraa and Lujain) suffer from sadness, fear and anxiety due to family problems and domestic violence, and they mentioned the violence of the father towards their mother, which affected their psyche. Therefore, the court appreciates that their interest in the response of their mother to her request, which does not contradict the application of the Child Law regarding the request for their documents as well, which applies to all children in the territory of the State of Kuwait, whose goal is to achieve protection and care for the rights of the child. Thus, the appealed judgment shall be supported for the reasons added by the court as will been contained in the operative.
  • d) Applicant’s Decision -Making Responsibility FINAL order No. 79/2020 Hawalli Civil  Family Court- January 2021 - ACTIVE at the time of leaving Kuwait. By applying Article (43) of the Kuwaiti  Law No. (5) of 1961_organizing the legal relations of foreign element (5/1961) - the court to decide applying the Jordanian Personal Status Law No. 15/2019 in all the disputes based on that, Zakaria Zayed, is a Jordanian National, who insisted in applying the Jordanian Personal Status Law.
  • e) Applicant’s Decision -Making Responsibility FINAL order No. 69/2020 Hawalli Civil  Family Court- January 2021 - ACTIVE at the time of leaving Kuwait. By applying Article (43) of the Kuwaiti  Law No. (5) of 1961_organizing the legal relations of foreign element (5/1961) - the court to decide applying the Jordanian Personal Status Law No. 15/2019 in all the disputes based on that, Zakaria Zayed, is a Jordanian National, who insisted in applying the Jordanian Personal Status Law.
  • f) All the main previous orders were final by the date mentioned in each one of them. HOWEVER, after orchestrating the mother’s and children’s deportation from Kuwait, the respondent father reversed course and invoked a different legal framework by fraudulently claiming Kuwaiti nationality. He never served the mother with any applications or court pleadings and even concealed the resulting orders until July 2022, by which time he had completed all actions on his end.
  • g) Disputed Kuwait Custody Order 1528/2021 – Hawalli Family Court – Issued post-deportation of mother & children; relies on Kuwaiti Personal Status Law No. 51/1984 through false claim that the father is a KUWAITI NATIONAL; foreign order issued without jurisdiction over non-resident children (conflict-of-laws / fraudulent / Without Jurisdiction Over Non-Resident Children/  basis for set-aside)
  • h) His custody order was dismissed as a final basis in the judgment in the 16days trial dated Feb 16, 2024, at Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), at para 304, https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par304 
  • i) Mother’s Permanent Travel-Permission Order for the Children – Hawalli Family Court, Kuwait (Urgent Order No. 543/2021, June 2021) – Active when family departed Kuwait; issued under the fact on Foreign Element, not Kuwaiti National. Please review the judgment trial dated Feb 16, 2024, paragraphs [150 & 151]
  • [150] On June 21, 2021, the mother again applied to a court in Kuwait for permission to travel with the children outside of the country. In the mother’s petition, she stated that her residency in Kuwait was “to join the family as a wife, while [the father] refuses to waive her sponsorship and allow her to transfer her residency in … Kuwait.” Accordingly, she was in violation of Kuwaiti residency laws and “…must leave the country because she is Jordanian…”[16]
  • [151] The mother also submitted that the father requested of the Ministry of Interior, Residence Affairs Investigations (36/2021) that his divorced wife be deported as he is her sponsor.[17]
  • j) Kuwait Order 158/2022 (11 May 2022) — issued after the family had left Kuwait, without service on the applicant and without jurisdiction over non-Kuwaiti, non-resident children; purports to cancel the already-fully-enforced Permanent Travel-Permission Order 543/2021 solely to block further travel, in violation of Kuwaiti Law 5/1961.
  • This ruling rests on the father’s false allegation that the mother sought only a temporary travel permit and then “fled,” even though Order 543/2021 granted the children permanent, destination- and time-unspecified travel rights, enabling their continuing residence abroad and effectively cutting off the father’s contact.
  • k) Attached in the applicant’s exhibit Certificates of Permanent Transfer of the Children out of Kuwait (2019) — a series of exit-clearance records demonstrating that, beginning in 2019, the father himself arranged for the children to leave Kuwait permanently, well before the final divorce decree and the subsequent orders granting the mother sole custody and guardianship. These certificates prove the father’s prior refusal to keep the children in Kuwait and undermine any later claim that their relocation was unauthorized.
  • l) Attached in Applicant’s exhibit shows that at 11:50 p.m., 11 March 2020, during Kuwait’s COVID-19 lockdown, the father evicted the children and me, citing an earlier theft complaint. Also, attached The judgment in Theft Case No. 6287/2020—a criminal case the father launched against the mother in 2019—was issued on 14 June 2021 and completely exonerated the mother.
  • m) However, attached evidence: (WhatsApp, 29 July 2020) shows him ordering us back, calling it “a duty imposed by ALLAH” and accusing me of seeking “freedom,” while offering no other housing—evidence that his actions, not mine, endangered the children.
  • n) An example of the father’s attempts to force the mother to relinquish custody of the children solely to make him cease his personal harassment of her. Also, paragraph# 141 at the judgment in this case.
  • o) a court order dated November 2020 directing the father’s arrest and appearance as a debtor for failing to pay 3,413.500 Kuwaiti Dinars in child support, illustrating his ongoing financial abuse.
  • p) an official report dated 29 November 2020 from the Embassy of Jordan in Kuwait confirming that the Respondent fraudulently obtained and altered the children’s passports.
  • q) a police incident certificate dated May 2021 confirming that, at the Respondent’s instigation, I was taken into custody in front of the children. The certificate states no lawful basis for my arrest; it merely records planned defamatory remarks, plainly intended to damage my reputation.
  • r) chat exchange dated 20 August 2022 that exemplifies the Respondent’s pattern of harassment. Since the start of our marriage, he has repeatedly not only blended physical abuse but also religious abuse with mental, verbal, and emotional abuse, telling me, for example: “You don’t understand life, laws, motherhood, or religion at all…..” “But you are used to being rude and saying dirty words.”…”Be rotten in Canada and live like a founding.”
  • s) Some evidence concerning the sexual harassment of the young daughter in 2021.
  • t) the Respondent’s handwritten  note from a reconciliation session on 21 February 2017. Asked to list four positive qualities about me, he actually wrote eleven: (1. She is keen on the home and everybody, 2. Committed, 3. Pious to God, 4. Respectful & successful housewife, 5. Patient, 6. Educated, 7. Cooperative, 8. Good cook, 9. Appreciating respect, 10…., 11. …); those contrast to his current effort to brand me a criminal only after I refused to remain in a violent marriage.
  • u) That decision is compelling proof of the father’s long-standing intent to harm the mother and jeopardise the children’s welfare. It confirms that meaningful mediation is impossible and that he now poses a continuing danger to both the mother and the children. Accordingly, it is this Court’s responsibility to halt his abusive litigation and protect a Canadian citizen and her children.
  • v) Documentary evidence shows that the parenting file was permanently closed—both in the Kuwaiti court and at the Children’s Visitation Centre—on 21 May 2021, before the mother and children left Kuwait. After learning that they had resettled in Ottawa, Canada, the father nonetheless managed to re-open the file without the mother’s knowledge or serving her, in clear disregard of the closure order.
  • w) Certified documents issued by the Kuwaiti Ministry of Education on 13 June 2021 confirm that the mother completed every required step for registering the children as students relocating abroad. Under Kuwaiti regulations—and pursuant to final court orders granting her sole custody and decision-making authority to protect the children from their violent father—this process does not require the father’s consent or any travel-permission letter. The certificates bear the official seals and signatures of all relevant government departments, demonstrating the mother’s full legal compliance before the family left Kuwait.
  • x) Attached disclosure by the Director of Kuwaiti Community Police Department – equal to CAS in Canada- confirms the anger and stress for the children, and the violence from the father in Kuwait.
  • y) I attached as evidence: Case No. 20/1062 Hawali Family Court which is Certified court application show that the father’s mother, Sharifa Zayed—was in her eighties—filed three separate urgent parenting-time applications against the applicant mother in December 2020. She launched those cases in a different division of the Kuwaiti court system from the father’s own proceedings, alleging that the children had been cut off from their grandmother. All three applications were dismissed by the judges. The children themselves refused contact with their grandmother because of her past violence toward the applicant mother and toward them, and the court found no merit in her claims.
  • z) In Case No. 500/2020 before the Ḥawallī Family Court (Kuwait), the father—prior to the mother’s award of sole decision-making responsibility—sought an order compelling her to surrender the passports of all three children and her own passport, insisting he could not renew their residency permits without the physical documents, even though COVID-era rules allowed sponsors to renew residency online. The court dismissed his application, after which the mother received exclusive decision-making authority that remained in force when she and the children left Kuwait. Nevertheless, once they had departed and despite the divorce, the father unlawfully renewed the mother’s Kuwaiti residency under his spousal sponsorship, flagrantly breaching residency regulations and underscoring his readiness to employ fraudulent tactics beyond any limit.

PART IV–ANALYSIS / FRAUDULENT BY FATHER:


29. However, aided by well-placed associates within the Kuwaiti government—particularly senior officials at the Ministry of the Interior—the father undertook actions that endangered the mother and the three children. The mother realised that he was using fraud and intimidation to strip her of custody through unlawful channels, even though no legitimate grounds existed for removing the children from her care. 

30. Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), at para 141, <https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par141> [141] The mother went home with the children. She was called by the police to attend at the police station. She went there with the three children. When she arrived, she saw the father laughing with Mr. Al Qalaf and the other employee. Mr. Al Qalaf verbally abused B., who was crying. The father did not intervene on B.’s behalf. The father asked the mother to sign a document giving him custody. He said that if she did, she could return home quietly. She refused. The mother was then arrested and held overnight.

31. Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), at para 17, <https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par17> [17] In her evidence, the mother was able to identify some positive aspects of the children’s relationship with the father. This is to be contrasted with the father’s evidence that she was not a good mother. He did not allow a positive view of the mother, even though he did not contest the Kuwaiti court order that originally granted her custody of the children.

32. Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), at para 36, <https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par36> [36] The father’s unwillingness to concede any positive attributes to the mother’s care of the children is of concern. This evidence supports a finding that his interest in the outcome of the case is greater than his willingness to be candid and truthful. As noted above, he did not contest the mother’s claim for custody when the original order was made in Kuwait.

33. By the time the new proceedings were commenced, none of the applicant mother and the three children were supposed to retain any legal status in Kuwait. The Applicant Mother holds Jordanian nationality and a Palestinian identity document, while the children’s status is as follows: Baraa and Lujain are Canadian citizens (first-generation in Canada) and, together with Mariam, also hold Jordanian nationality. Having relocated permanently to Ontario, Canada, the family fell outside Kuwait’s jurisdiction under Kuwait Law No. 5 of 1961 on the Regulation of Legal Relations Involving a Foreign Element. Nevertheless, the Respondent Father pressed on with the Kuwaiti actions, invoking Articles 7, 8(c)–(e), 9, 23, and 43 of that very statute—even though those provisions remove Kuwaiti jurisdiction in these circumstances.

34. Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), at para 25, <https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par25> [25] A further concern is that, in a Kuwaiti court order made after the mother arrived in Canada, a finding of fraud was made against her.[1]  The basis of this finding of fraud arose because the mother “claimed to temporarily travel with the children to their country of origin, Jordan…”. In evidence, the father claimed the fraud related to evidence the mother gave the court in support of her request to travel outside of Kuwait. The father claimed that the mother gave the court a false itinerary of her proposed travel. The mother denied this was the case and produced the itinerary she said was provided. She also showed that there was an error in the English translation of the date of one of the documents referred to by the father. It was suggested that this change in the date undermined whether the fraud finding should be made. The mother also stated that she was not able to appear in person at the Kuwaiti court hearing in question because it did not allow for remote attendance.[2] It is not proper for this court to look behind the Kuwaiti court order. The Kuwaiti court made a decision based on the evidence that was put before it. The father did not put all of those documents in evidence before this court. |  [2] This court order notes that the mother did have counsel present. However, the mother’s evidence is that counsel who appeared on her behalf had not been instructed by her.

35. The Respondent Father’s conduct amounts to a fraud on the Kuwaiti court: he secured new orders by concealing material facts—namely, the family’s relocation abroad and the impossibility of personal service—and by falsely asserting that proper notice had been given. He compounded that deceit by invoking a different personal-status law (Kuwaiti Law No. 51/1984, applicable to Kuwaiti nationals) in order to undermine the pre-existing final custody orders, thereby abusing the judicial process. Orders obtained through such misrepresentation are voidable and unenforceable in Ontario under well-established Canadian conflict-of-laws principles and the fraud to abuse the judicial process (Beals v Saldanha, 2003 SCC 72, paras 46–51) at Beals v. Saldanha, 2003 SCC 72 (CanLII), [2003] 3 SCR 416, <https://canlii.ca/t/1g7bw>

36. I attached evidence Proof of Service – Amman Court Application (served at Zakaria Zayed residence in Jordan, not Lubna Aldahleh’s permanent address.

37. Interpol - shows the Respondent filed three ex-parte enforcement requests—28 May 2023 and 14 June 2023 with the Directorate of Public Security, and 20 June 2023 with INTERPOL—without ever serving me or allowing me to respond. I learned of the INTERPOL notice only when the RCMP contacted me on 20 October 2023. Although this evidence was entered at trial, the judgment did not address it, which heightens my concern that anti-Muslim bias may have influenced the Superior Court’s decision.

38. The misleading on the court in Jordan by the respondent father, showing he sent his e-mail only months after he had already triggered INTERPOL and, in it, ignored my request for a virtual-hearing link also shows he gave the Jordanian court his own Jordanian address for serving me in Jordan, even though I have lived in Canada since July 2021 and have had no address in Jordan since 2009, when I moved permanently to Kuwait after our marriage.

39. Tab 04 of Brief Exhibit “B,” filed in support of the Applicant Mother’s affidavit sworn 2 June 2025, contains the Respondent Father’s Amended Answer dated 28 June 2024, filed pursuant to Justice Tobin’s order of 19 March 2024; yet, despite the 16-day trial before Justice Tobin having finally disposed of his child-abduction allegations, the Respondent continues to abuse the court process by re-litigating that issue, requesting Ontario to recognise a series of ex parte Kuwaiti orders obtained without ever serving the Applicant Mother, and advancing new, unsubstantiated criminal accusations together with fabricated claims about the Applicant Mother’s mental health “psychological issues”—for instance, the assertions found at page 3, paragraph 3 of the Amended Answer. “In reply to paragraph 5, the Respondent maintains that he treated the children with love and affection. Before the separation, the children had a strong and loving relationship and shared activities, with the Respondent. After the separation, the Applicant purposely damaged the children’s relationship with their father by alienating, brainwashing, and controlling them, creating and convincing them with fabricated stories and/or misrepresenting events with bad intentions. She worked hard to ban all communications with the children to maintain control. She wrongly removed them to Canada to obtain Canadian citizenship, government benefits, free education, and more for herself, without any concern for the children's well-being. The children were merely a tool for her to achieve her personal aims. Her father, may he rest in peace, held the highest military rank and was a very powerful man. I believe she abused her father's relationships to collect documents from courts without being served legally. I think she suffers significantly from delusions of grandeur. Lubna never had any problems with her family and never filed any complaints against them. Her family misled the Respondent by hiding her psychological issues and pretending to try to convince her to come back, but in fact, they were not. They will always stand with her whether she is doing right or wrong.”. 

40. The Respondent Father’s latest allegations appear calculated to capitalise on prejudice against the Applicant Mother as a veiled Muslim woman, multiplying avenues to harm both her and the children. If, as he now contends, the Applicant Mother suffers from psychological problems and her family deceived him in 2018 to secure her return, he offers no explanation for why he never challenged the 2020 Kuwaiti custody order that confirmed her fitness—or why he continues to pressure her to reconcile while simultaneously seeking to strip her of custody. These contradictions are addressed in detail in the Applicant Mother’s Reply to the Respondent Father’s affidavit dated 2 June 2025, particularly the portion responding to his comments about her father’s service in the Palestinian military and the Respondent Father’s own Zionist references. I swear I do not care of anyone’s opinion on my mental health. My mental capacity and strong focus are very clear from my documents and from the judgment issued after a trial that lasted sixteen days, in which everyone who opposed us failed. It seems the intention is still to impugn my mental capacity! But this is how people who hate Muslims operate. They start by questioning our intelligence, claiming we are mentally unfit and have psychological problems. Yet these accusations will not stop us, no matter the cost. While the beloved Prophet Muhammad -peace be upon him- was accused of that by the hatred of his his truthfulness, compassion, love, and sincerity throughout his prophetic mission of calling people to Islam, we do not care whatever is said about us. ALLAH is with us and is sufficient for us.

41. In fact, I did not abuse any order in this court at all. But the abused Judges did misuse of their authority. The Zionist who are control this case from the beginning are the persons who contempt the law. 

42. The judge, Leiper J.,  in the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO - DIVISIONAL COURT, who control my appeal for the urgent matter to delay it and then preventing my materials in DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 704/23 “civil matter” from being delivered to the panel 3 judges, just to hide the evidence that submitted regarding the fraudulent by Judge Mitrow and Sah who are dishonest in their endorsement to issue orders against me. The >>>>>

TO BE CONTINUED DUE TO THE LIMIT OF TEXT

Support now
Sign this petition
Copy link
WhatsApp
Facebook
Nextdoor
Email
X