To continue the court material from the previous post, …
CONTINUE >>>> 7. FACTUM for Motions (except OCL Motion) _ APPLICANT - ALDAHLEH - 27-JUNE-2025
**Motion for REMOVING OCL**
- Zakaria Zayed _ Respondent's Form 14: Notice of Motion
- Zakaria Zayed _ Respondent's Form 14A: Affidavit (General) dated May 12, 2025
- Lubna Aldahleh _ Form 14: Notice of Motion CROSS-Motion Of Removing OCL Dated: 31-May-2025
- Lubna Aldahleh _ Form 14A: Affidavit CROSS-Motion Of Removing OCL Dated: 01-June-2025
**************************
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 urgent motion to appeal J. Mitrow’s order dated Nov 23, 2023, filed in December of 2023. Which was supposed to set within two weeks as an urgent matter. However, J. Leiper ignored all the material ti issue the endorsement by April 25, 2024, the is no reason to set it in hearing before the three judges. Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 2417 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k4887>.
43. The hatred against Muslim by control all complains to put limit of the anti-Muslimism as blinding of the evidence in CJC File: 23-0655 filed on November 07, 2023, and civil matter against Judge Sah : M-2023-9379 who issued multi false endorsements by highlighting false statement that the mother did not understand anything and highlighting the stress and mental heath.
44. Our faith teaches us that our healing is by planting the good seeds in our community to help the people around us. All the orders in our Holy Book – Quraan is clearly guide us to our healing and how must we resist the oppression.
45. The fact behind the Hebrews original of the OCL (Cohen Highley London Ontario - Law Firm) who was involved since Sam Misheal took this case to hide all the evidence on my favour, aiming charge me in criminal case to take the children form me. All the rules were abused in this case just to create false scenario and fraudulent evidence just to claim that the mother is terrorist, crazy, or even unapplicable to take the custody order over the children to take them. Cohen is one of the largest family name of Hebrews, however, I did not give this any warning until I discovered the fraudulent and the manipulation against my religion by appointed Sheie Expert to be expert on my religion which is unacceptable.
46. According to my faith as a Sunni Muslim, it would be wrong for me to accuse anyone of disbelief or claim they are not Muslim—even if their behaviour makes me doubt them. They may be hypocrites or sinners, but they are still Muslim. To be clear to this Honourable Court, I will never risk disobeying ALLAH and losing His pleasure just because someone falsely accuses me.
47. After our divorce, my ex-husband himself admitted he is a Zionist Mason—not a Jew by religion—and threatened that he would turn our children into soldiers for Zionists to kill Palestinian Muslims. He boasted that he never chose me as his wife by chance, but because my grandfather refused to leave Palestine, clung to his faith, and stayed in his homeland. In 1969, my grandfather was imprisoned and tortured by the Zionist occupiers for nearly a year, then exiled with his sons. My ex cited, when he admit that in 2021, the word a “fornicator” in every day of our marriage, hoping to drive me from my faith, but he did not understand that our true cause is to stand firm in our religion and seek ALLAH’s pleasure what ever is the trial will be hard.
48. I do not call myself sinful for living with someone who lied about being Muslim; my patience, acceptance of my fate, and total submission to ALLAH will not be in vain. My grandmother stayed steadfast in our home in Palestine until she passed away in 2009, and my grandfather went on Hajj immediately after his exile despite severe illness—proof that steadfastness to the truth cannot be destroyed by anyone’s tricks. I would rather die firm in my faith, principles, and creed than live years away from obeying ALLAH.
49. Regarding the father’s claim that I take pride in following al-Khansāʾ and the Mothers of the Believers to uphold my creed and values since 2021 and before I moved to Canada—if his translations were accurate, why did he never raise these concerns in Kuwait to protect our children, or in Canada before the trial? His objections date back to early 2021.
50. If he believes the killing of my brothers, sisters, and children in Palestine, and the West’s support for Israel, will make me fear defending my people’s humanity, he is totally wrong. We are not lion’s cubs who accept being sheep led to slaughter. ALLAH is with us and suffices for us.
51. Nor do I expect our King, as Canadians, to accept that we betray our country and our people. Whoever betrays their family and roots will betray any king or state.
52. I wonder why the Masons lack the courage to admit who they really are!
53. This is a family matter—not about Masons, Palestinians, or religious doctrines—but if it were, our religion, creed, and principles are non-negotiable, no matter the cost.
54. Based on the fact that I did not finish my argument here. I will continue in my petition. ALLAH wills.
All of which is respectfully submitted by:
Lubna Aldahleh, Self-Represented Applicant
Date: June 27, 2025
**************************************************
**Motion for REMOVING OCL**
- Zakaria Zayed _ Respondent's Form 14: Notice of Motion
TO THE PARTIES: THE COURT WILL HEAR A MOTION on (date) July 11, 2025 At 10:00AM , or as soon as possible after that time at: (place of hearing) 80 Dundas Street, London, Ontario, N6A 6A3
This motion will be made by (name of person making motion) Zakaria Zayed
State the order or orders requested on this motion.
1.An order removing the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and excluding any evidence, affidavits,reports, assessments, or opinions prepared or submitted by the OCL.
2.An order for the costs of this motion; and
3.Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just and proper.
*******************************
2. Zakaria Zayed _ Respondent's Form 14A: Affidavit (General) dated May 12, 2025
My name is (Full legal name) Zakaria A. M. Zayed
I live in (Municipality and province) Jabriya, Kuwait
PART 1: INTRODUCTION AND RELIEF REQUESTED
1. I am the Respondent in this case and the father of the three children involved in this proceeding. I am making this affidavit to support my motion for an order removing the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) and excluding all of their reports, affidavits, and other evidence.
2. I am bringing this motion because I believe the OCL has failed to meet its legal, procedural, and professional responsibilities. These failures have affected the fairness of the court process, harmed my children’s well-being, interfered with my rights as their father, and disrupted our family’s overall stability. As outlined in the sections below, these concerns are supported by specific facts and documents.
PART 2: THE OCL’S APPOINTMENT AND STATUTORY DUTIES
3. On May 26, 2023, the Honourable Justice Tobin issued an order appointing the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) in this case.
4. The OCL was appointed under sections 89(3.1) and 112 of the Courts of Justice Act. Their mandate included conducting an independent investigation into the children’s circumstances, reviewing all relevant records, and acting as neutral legal counsel for the children. Their role was to help the court understand the children’s best interests, in accordance with Ontario law and the court’s directions set out in the May 26, 2023 order.
5. During the trial, the presiding judge stated that Ms. Lisa Heslop, the OCL social worker, “did not conduct an assessment” and was “not qualified as an expert to give opinions.”
PART 3: PROCEDURAL MISCONDUCT AND MISLEADING THE COURT
6. The OCL failed to carry out its court-ordered responsibilities. Instead of conducting a new and independent assessment, the affidavit dated February 20, 2025—like those filed earlier on July 21, 2023, November 14, 2023, and January 14, 2025—simply repeated previous content without any updated investigation, interviews, or new findings. (See OCL affidavits filed by Lisa Heslop.)
7. On February 5, 2025, the children declined to speak meaningfully with the OCL and the assigned social worker. They clearly stated that they did not wish to meet with them. (See Tab 5 – Gmail: Children’s Refusal to Meet OCL.)
8. During a court appearance on October 24, 2024, before the Honourable Justice Howard, the Applicant confirmed that the children were refusing to meet with the OCL. Although she promised to help arrange a meeting, she later withdrew that commitment and failed to follow through.
9. Throughout this time, the OCL made no effort to contact me to gather information, provide updates, or request input. I sent multiple emails, but they were ignored. I did not receive any meaningful response or engagement from the OCL. (See Tab 8 – Ignored Communications and Responses by OCL.)
10. Despite being aware that the children had refused further communication, the OCL still attended the February 26, 2025 hearing. During that hearing, Justice Bezaire ordered two additional meetings between the children and the OCL. (See Tab 7 – Order for Additional Children’s Meetings.)
11. The OCL did not inform the Court that the children had already declined to meet with them. In their Confirmation of Motion (Form 14C) dated February 21, 2025, OCL lawyer Kimberly Doucett explicitly stated that the OCL was not seeking any court orders. (See Tab 6 – OCL Form 14C (February 21, 2025).
12. The OCL’s failure to disclose this critical information misled the Court, caused confusion about the actual status of the case, and created unnecessary emotional stress for both the children and myself.
PART 4: PATTERN OF BIAS AND ONE-SIDED INVESTIGATION
13. Since their appointment, the OCL has consistently shown bias in favour of the Applicant mother and promoted a narrative focused on keeping the children in Canada. Their reports rely heavily on the Applicant’s version of events, while ignoring valid custody orders from Kuwait and Jordan, and failing to acknowledge my parenting time confirmed by Ontario court orders.
14. The OCL disregarded clear contradictions in the CAS records and public media posts by the Applicant. They also ignored my submissions, including more than 10 video recordings and many emails that showed my strong, positive relationship with the children. (See Tabs 3, 4, and 8 – OCL Refusal of Therapy, Refusal to Meet with Children, and Ignored Communications.)
15. Both the OCL and CAS have focused almost entirely on negative depictions of the children’s past in Kuwait. They failed to acknowledge the children’s emotional stability, family support, and healthy development during that period.
16. At the same time, serious problems the children faced in Canada were mostly ignored. These include frequent changes of schools and homes; blocked communication with their father, sibling, and extended family; living in shelters without family support; refusal to accept gifts from me; and emotional stress symptoms such as bedwetting, aggression, and frequent conflict between siblings.
17. These concerns were not properly investigated or reflected in the OCL’s reports. Instead, the reports focused only on selected positive aspects of the children’s current environment while overlooking the serious challenges they face. The reports failed to consider their emotional security, sense of identity, or the harmful impact of being cut off from their father for an extended period. (See Tabs 4 and 8, and referenced OCL/CAS reports.)
18. The overall approach of the OCL appears more focused on justifying the children's continued stay in Canada than on neutrally evaluating what is actually in their best interests.
PART 5: OCL IGNORED COURT ORDERS AND SUPPORTED PARENTAL ALIENATION
19. On July 31, 2023, the Honourable Justice Tobin ordered the OCL to speak with the children about how they preferred to communicate with their father. The OCL and the mother were also directed to provide me with the children’s contact information, including any relevant social media accounts and preferred communication platforms. The court further ordered both parents to begin services with relationship counselor Paula DeVeto. (See Tab 2 – July 31, 2023 Temporary Order.)
20. These conditions were a key reason I agreed to adjourning the trial. Despite the clear directions, both the OCL and the mother failed to comply. The OCL ultimately supported the mother’s refusal to follow the order. This was unfair and misleading, and it caused me to consent to the adjournment under false expectations. (See Tab 1 – Adjournment Conditions) and (See Tab 3 – OCL Refusal of Relationship Therapy.)
21. The OCL was copied on several emails that clearly showed the mother had blocked communication, refused to allow the children to receive gifts, and withheld school information. Despite being fully informed, the OCL failed to respond or take any action. They appeared indifferent to the court order violations and ignored my repeated messages about the complete communication cutoff. (See Tab 4 – OCL Refusal to Meet with Children.) and (See Tab 2 – July 31, 2023 Temporary Order.)
22. Instead of encouraging or helping to restore communication, the OCL supported the mother’s refusal—without asking the children for their views or respecting their right to choose how they wished to communicate with me. This directly violated the court’s order, which required the children to be given that choice.
23. The OCL also failed to take any steps to support the relationship counseling ordered by the court. They did not assist with the intake process for services with Paula DeVeto, even though the court provided clear direction and timelines. (See Tab 3 – OCL Refusal of Relationship Therapy.)
24. By refusing to follow the court’s instructions and by siding with the mother, the OCL interfered with efforts to rebuild my relationship with the children. Their inaction contributed to the ongoing parental alienation and further harmed the bond between me and my children. (See Tabs 2, 3, 4, and 5.)
25. Additional breaches of the May 26, 2023 court order are also described in Part 8 of this affidavit.
PART 6: CONTRADICTIONS IN CAS RECORDS AND OCL’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS THEM
26. Records from the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) show that the Applicant, Lubna Aldahleh, gave inconsistent and changing accounts over time. Her first contact with CAS in August 2021 (Intake No. 10765050) was not a child protection report—it was simply a request for support and counseling. No concerns about abuse or risk to the children were reported, and the file was closed with no further action.
27. In later CAS intakes—specifically in March 2022 and again in early 2023 (Intakes 11310905, 12433465, and 12443448)—the Applicant’s story changed. She moved from asking for general referrals to requesting formal letters for immigration purposes, and eventually began making serious allegations of abuse. These new claims appeared shortly before key court hearings, raising serious concerns about their timing and credibility.
28. The CAS also recorded concerns that the children were being exposed to adult conflict and may have been coached by the Applicant to repeat certain statements.
29. If the OCL had carefully reviewed the complete CAS file—as they claimed in their affidavits—they would have clearly seen these contradictions and patterns of shifting narratives.
30. These inconsistencies were never acknowledged or addressed in the OCL’s reports. Their failure to identify or comment on these issues undermines the credibility of their findings and raises serious concerns about the objectivity of their investigation.
PART 7: RELIABILITY OF THE CHILDREN’S VIEWS AND NEED FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
31. Since 2021, I have had no meaningful contact with my three children. This long term communication cutoff—actively maintained and reinforced by the Applicant raises serious concerns about whether the children’s currently stated preferences are truly independent, informed, or free from influence or pressure.
32. During this period, the Applicant has maintained full control over the children’s daily environment, communication, schooling, and access to external support. She has systematically isolated them from me and from any neutral third party, contributing to ongoing parental alienation and undue influence.
33. My youngest daughter, Mariam, was under the age of three when she was removed from my care. At that stage of development, she could not have formed a long-lasting or meaningful preference. Her complete refusal to communicate with me years later is unlikely to be self-directed and suggests psychological conditioning or external influence.
34. Initially, Mariam was cheerful and engaged during video calls and interacted with me comfortably. However, after being blocked from all contact for over six weeks, she returned with a sudden change in behavior. Without any explanation or emotion, she said, “I don’t want to speak with you,” and added, “You are bad guy planning to take me to do bad things.” This abrupt shift in tone strongly suggests adult interference, likely by the Applicant, rather than a genuine expression of her own wishes. (See Tab 5 – Gmail: Children’s Refusal to Meet OCL.)
35. My two older children, Baraa and Lujain, have also expressed views that closely mirror the Applicant’s language used in her court documents and public online petitions. Their statements to the OCL are repetitive and appear to reflect the tone and themes from the Applicant’s Change.org and GoFundMe posts. (See Tab 9 – Accusations and Threats Against OCL Counsel.)
36. Despite these clear signs of possible alienation and undue influence, the OCL never requested an independent psychological evaluation. They did not involve any neutral expert to assess whether the children’s views were genuine or shaped by prolonged one-sided exposure.
37. The May 26, 2023 court order required the OCL to carry out an independent and impartial investigation. This included a duty to ensure that the children’s views were not coached, rehearsed, or the result of pressure by one parent. The OCL failed to meet this obligation.
38. OCL social worker Lisa Hislop is not qualified to perform psychological assessments or formally evaluate children’s preferences. Despite this, the OCL relied on her personal impressions without seeking external or professional validation.
39. The OCL also ignored repeated signs that the children no longer wished to engage with them. Even after Justice Bezaire ordered two additional meetings during the February 26, 2025 hearing, the OCL did not clarify to the court that the children had already refused such meetings. ( See Tab 7 – Order for Additional Children’s Meetings.), (See Tab 5 – Gmail: Children’s Refusal to Meet OCL.)
40. These failures by the OCL violate both the spirit and intent of the court’s order. They also risk misleading the court by presenting the children’s views as neutral and reliable, when the full context shows they may not be.
41. As a result, the evidentiary record in this case is incomplete and misleading. It does not reflect the children’s true best interests and has affected the fairness of these proceedings.
42. The lack of communication between me and the children—now lasting over four years—was not natural. It was created and maintained by the Applicant. In this context, the children’s views cannot be considered reliable or independent without a proper psychological assessment by a qualified professional.
43. This extended separation, combined with the Applicant’s full control over the children’s surroundings and access, raises ongoing concerns about parental alienation, undue influence, and psychological conditioning.
44. Mariam was still under the age of three when she was separated from me. Her current refusal to speak with me is unlikely to be based on her own independent thinking. Instead, it is more consistent with long-term external influence and denial of contact.
45. Neither the OCL nor the Applicant has allowed an independent specialist to assess the children’s psychological well-being or evaluate the reliability of their stated preferences.
46. In these circumstances, asking the children about their preferences—without first ensuring a neutral, professional assessment—is procedurally flawed and risks giving the Court a distorted picture of their true best interests.
PART 8: BREACH OF MAY 26, 2023 COURT ORDER AND BLOCKED CONTACT
47. The court order issued on May 26, 2023 required the Applicant to facilitate communication between the children and me, and to identify each child’s preferred method of contact.
48. However, on August 15, 2023, the OCL—through Sam Misheal—stated that he would not meet with the children to determine their preferences, claiming that the children did not wish to speak with me.
49. This decision directly violated the court order and showed undue deference to the Applicant’s influence, resulting in prolonged alienation and a complete denial of my parenting time.
PART 9: PROFESSIONAL AND ETHICAL MISCONDUCT BY OCL REPRESENTATIVES
50. The OCL—specifically Mr. Sam Misheal and Ms. Lisa Hislop—strongly supported, through sworn affidavits, the involvement of individuals whose qualifications were questionable. This included Mr. Anthony Macri, appointed as an amicus, despite a documented history of professional misconduct, and Mr. Hossein Raeesi, who was presented as an expert witness even though he lacked relevant expertise in Sharia law or Sunni Islamic legal principles. (See Tab 9 – Accusations and Threats Against OCL Counsel.)
51. These appointments undermined the cultural accuracy and legal integrity of the proceedings. They reflect the OCL’s failure to ensure that individuals involved in this case were neutral, professionally qualified, and culturally appropriate.
PART 10: ANOTHER REASON TO REMOVE THE OCL AND EXCLUDE THEIR EVIDENCE
52. The Applicant mother has made serious and repeated threats, accusations, and hostile remarks against the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL), including its staff and role in this case. She has questioned their professionalism, accused them of bias, and made damaging statements—both in private communications and in public forums.
53. In an email dated June 27, 2024, sent directly to OCL lawyer Kimberly Doucett, the Applicant wrote:“Are you sure you are a lawyer? … You are not professional and not suitable to represent children.” “Do you wish to lose your license?” “OCL IS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER PROCEEDS. You will see that sooner than later.” “We do not need any service from OCL… I or anyone on my behalf can do so before the court to sue all the FRAUDULENTS.” (See Tab 9 – Accusations and Threats Against OCL Counsel.)
54. In her own written notes, the Applicant also accused OCL lawyer Sam Misheal of religious discrimination (The Applicant herself raised this concern. I share some of these concerns as outlined in this affidavit.). She claimed: “He asked me about my RELIGION… I am Muslim SUNNAH… Sam decided to bring someone against my religion to be an expert…” In her public petition posted online, the Applicant repeated inflammatory allegations, including: “The former children’s lawyer openly said: ‘The mother’s religion and beliefs are a danger to the children…’” “Stop the ILLEGAL involvement of the OCL… There is a conflict of interest.”
55. Based on the Applicant’s own written and public statements - ...which I confirm were made, and some of which raise legitimate concerns. it is clear that she no longer trusts the OCL and believes they are acting against the children’s best interests. This breakdown in trust, combined with the OCL’s procedural and professional failures, has destroyed their ability to remain neutral, objective, or effective in this case.
PART 11: LEGAL STANDARDS AND AUTHORITIES
56. Ontario courts have made clear that OCL reports must be impartial and reliable. In Springstead v. Springstead, 2022 ONSC 1906, the Court gave little weight to biased OCL reports. In Maharaj v. Wilfred-Jacob, 2016 ONSC 7925, unverified claims were found unreliable. In Foster v. Spence, [2000] O.J. No. 5848, the Court affirmed its role in excluding flawed OCL evidence. Additionally, OCL protocols and the Ontario College of Social Workers Code of Ethics require independence, objectivity, and responsiveness—standards that were not met here.
PART 12: More Reasons to Remove the OCL and Exclude Their Evidence
57. Outdated and Repetitive Affidavits: The OCL affidavits dated July 21, 2023; November 13, 2023; January 14, 2025; and February 20, 2025 simply repeat old content without investigating or updating facts. They ignore major developments, including the children’s refusal to meet the OCL and the mother’s continued refusal to follow court orders.
58. Failure to Investigate or Contact Me: The OCL interviewed me only once, by Zoom, on June 20, 2023. After that, they never followed up, requested updates, or responded to my repeated emails. Despite this lack of contact, the OCL filed multiple affidavits without verifying the Applicant’s claims or considering my perspective. This failure to investigate both sides violates their duty to act fairly, neutrally, and in the children’s best interests
59. Ignored Court Orders and Misled the Court: The OCL failed to comply with court directions from July 31, 2023, including helping the children choose a method to communicate with me and supporting reunification counselling. These failures were never disclosed to the Court.
60. Biased and One-Sided: The OCL affidavits repeat the mother’s narrative and ignore her documented hostility, refusal to cooperate, and violations of court orders. They focus only on negative claims about me, while omitting key facts about the mother’s behaviour and the children's manipulated statements.
61. Children's Views Are Not Reliable Without Assessment: The OCL never asked why the children held certain views, nor did they arrange for a psychological assessment to determine whether those views were truly independent or the result of mother influence. This makes the OCL’s evidence incomplete and unreliable. The OCL is not qualified to assess the children's mental or emotional state, and cannot simply claim—without expert support—that the children’s views are consistent or genuine.
62. The OCL has failed to act impartially, follow court orders, or consider both sides. Their affidavits are outdated, biased, and unsupported by proper investigation.
63. For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request an order: Removing the Office of the Children’s Lawyer including all their evidences and opinions and to stop all types of communications with my children.
64. I make this affidavit in support of my motion and for no improper purpose.
Zakaria Zayed
*************
Lubna Aldahleh _ Form 14: Notice of Motion CROSS-Motion Of Removing OCL Dated: 31-May-2025
TO THE PARTIES: THE COURT WILL HEAR A MOTION on (date) July 11, 2025
at (time) 10:00 A.M , or as soon as possible after that time at: (place of hearing)
ZOOM LINK PROVIDED BY THE COURT
This motion will be made by (name of person making motion) Applicant Mother, Lubna Yousef Aldahleh
State the order or orders requested on this motion.
1. Pursuant to Rules 1(8)(c) and (d) and 1(8.1) of the Family Law Rules, I ask that all pages in excess of the Practice-Direction caps be struck and that the respondent be prohibited from relying on them at the Special Appointment.
2. Pursuant to Courts of Justice Act, R.R.O. 1990, REGULATION 194 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 2.1 FRIVOLOUS, VEXATIOUS OR ABUSIVE PROCEEDINGS / 2.1.01 (1) The court may make an order staying or dismissing a proceeding that appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. O. Reg. 322/24, s. 1.
3. An order, pursuant to s. 89(3.1) & s. 112 Courts of Justice Act, to that all interim orders appointing or continuing the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL)—namely Justice Tobin’s order of May 26 2023, Justice of the Peace Howard’s order of October 24 2024, Justice Tobin’s order of January 23 2025, Justice Bezair’s order of February 26 2025, and any other order addressing OCL involvement in this proceeding—are hereby set aside insofar as they relate to any future involvement of the OCL; that the OCL is discharged on a final basis, effective immediately; and that all reports, notes, affidavits, and other materials previously filed by the OCL shall remain part of the court record and may be relied upon by the parties and the Court.
4. An Order, pursuant to Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules, to strike the Respondent Father’s pleadings for noncompliance in order to provide disclosure. He did not submit them by the due date on March 16, 2024, and he did not initially serve his answer of the original application “Form 08” filed on October 07, 2022, and served officially to the oppose party on January 26, 2023.
5. An Order, pursuant to section 21.2(2) CLRA for CAS and all psychological assessments to disclose records and reports that may be in their possession with respect to any investigation in relation to the children and the Parties, and any more witnesses if necessary for this matter.
6. Under the Family Law Rules (O. Reg. 114/99), the child. Rule 12(1) states: “In a proceeding under these rules, the court may interview a child in private if it considers the interview necessary to determine what order would be in the best interests of the child.”. The children must be heard before the court without adding more prejudice to this case.
7. The cost of the motions.
8. Such further and other relief as Applicant may advise and this Honourable Court deem just.
*****************************************
4. Lubna Aldahleh _ Form 14A: Affidavit CROSS-Motion Of Removing OCL Dated: 01-June-2025
My name is (Full legal name) Lubna Aldahleh
I live in (municipality and province) London, Province of Ontario
and I swear/affirm that the following is true:
1. I am, Lubna Aldahleh, the applicant party in this matter, make this affidavit in support of my response to the respondent father’s Motion (Form 14) dated May 12, 2025, which seeks “removing OCL and excluding any evidence, affidavits, reports, assessments, or opinions prepared or submitted by the OCL.
2. In the paragraphs that follow, I oppose the respondent’s requests, and the reasons are set out below.
3. This affidavit in support of my cross-motion (Notice of Motion, Form 14) dated 31 May 2025, which—pursuant to paragraph 5(c) of Justice Bezair’s order dated 26 February 2025—must be served and filed no later than 2 June 2025. “paragraph 5 (c)The Respondent party on each of the Motions shall serve and file their responding Motion materials for each of the Motions by no later then June 2, 2025. This includes any amendments to be made to the affidavit evidence previously filed.”.
4. Pursuant to paragraph 5(e) of Justice Bezaire’s order dated 25 February 2025, all filings must comply with the Provincial and Regional Practice Directions regarding page limits, font size, and spacing. The parties’ request for leave to exceed those limits was denied. Consequently, the attached Exhibit “A” contains ten pages of evidence, which count toward the prescribed page limit, while any supporting materials are set out in a separate Brief of Exhibits that falls outside that page count. More crucial evidence will be provided if necessary.
5. On February 26, 2025, the motion was scheduled to be heard by way of a Special Appointment on July 11, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. (full-day), to be heard virtually. The respondent father served his own motion materials regarding removing the OCL and any materials from the record on 12 May 2025.
6. Prior judicial direction already in force: In the endorsement of Justice J. Bezaire dated 26 February 2025, paragraph 5(e) that is active and has not been stayed by order or appealed.
7. Under Part F, s. 2(b) of the Consolidated Provincial Practice Direction for Family Proceedings, each party on a long motion may file one primary affidavit of no more than 20 pages of narrative, with exhibits limited to the necessary and relevant evidence and “generally expected not to exceed 10 pages,” all typed in 12-point font and double-spaced. The only materials that may exceed those caps are the specific items listed in the Direction—such as parenting assessments, report cards, expert valuations, domestic contracts, and prior orders—which are expressly excluded from the page count. The Direction further states that leave to exceed these limits “will only be granted in exceptional circumstances.”
8. The respondent’s current filing affidavit totals approximately 56 pages: 12 pages of narrative plus **44 pages of exhibits, of which at least 20 pages fall inside the 10-page exhibit cap (i.e., they are ordinary communications and documents, not the exempt categories listed above). His package therefore exceeds the limit.
9. Pursuant to Rules 1(8)(c) and (d) and 1(8.1) of the Family Law Rules, I ask that all pages in excess of the Practice-Direction caps be struck, and that the respondent be prohibited from relying on them at the Special Appointment.
10. I ask the Court to decide my attached Notice of Motion (Form 14), filed 20 February 2025 with its amended affidavit sworn 12 May 2025, alongside this motion at the 11 July 2025 special appointment. That motion seeks to strike the respondent’s pleadings because he (a) failed to provide court-ordered disclosure and serve his Amended Answer by 16 March 2024, and (b) never filed an Answer within 60 days of being served on 26 January 2023. Hearing both motions together will avoid duplication, save costs, and—if granted—allow the Court to move directly to an uncontested trial and give effect to the final Kuwaiti orders issued before the children and I relocated to Canada.
HISTORY:
11. I am a Canadian citizen, living in Ontario since 2021 with my three children: Baraa Zayed (male, born 21 Oct 2010, Toronto) and Lujain Zayed (female, born 6 Nov 2012, Toronto)—both first‑generation Canadians—and Mariam Zayed (female, born 11 Oct 2018, Amman), who currently holds visitor‑visa status. Their father was born in Kuwait and now lives there on a temporary‑work residency with his second wife and their two children, as shown in his Superior Court filings.
12. This case started before the Superior Court of Justice since October 07, 2022.
13. (Attached Tab#10 in brief exhibit - B): The respondent was served with the application on January 26, 2023.
14. Rule 10 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (Answering a Case) sets a clear deadline: a respondent who resides outside Canada must serve and file an Answer within 60 days of being served with the application. The respondent failed to meet that deadline and never served the applicant mother with an Answer. Instead, despite not having properly engaged in this case, he filed and served an “urgent” motion seeking the children’s return to Kuwait, alleging that the applicant mother had abducted them.
15. (Attached Tab#11 in brief exhibit - B): The Answer was served on April 11, 2023, which makes it necessary to strike the respondent’s pleadings.
16. (Attached Tab#09 in brief exhibit - B): or at CanLII (Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0> On 16 February 2024, Justice Tobin delivered a final judgment following a sixteen-day trial in the London, Ontario, Superior Court of Justice – Family Court. Order paragraph [304] on a temporary basis 3. “The Respondent shall have 30 days from the date of the service of this order upon him to file his Answer in this proceeding.”. <https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par304> .
17. (Attached Tab#12 in brief exhibit - B): The respondent again failed to comply with the Court’s order and did not provide the required disclosure. This continued non compliance makes it necessary to strike the respondent’s pleadings.
18. Although the father eventually filed an Amended Answer, the motion was allowed to proceed and was not dismissed, even though its claimed urgency was unfounded. The matter culminated in a sixteen-day, highly complex trial, and the final order was released on 16 February 2024.
19. The OCL was involved in this matter by Judge Tobin on May 26, 2023. The respondent did not oppose that.
20. (Attached Tab#01 in brief exhibit - B): The Office of the Children’s Lawyer, counsel for all parties, and the CAS Director of Legal Services jointly signed a consent requesting full CAS disclosure in this case.
21. (Attached Tab#02 in brief exhibit - B): Judge Tobin issued a final order on July 27, 2023, directing that CAS be involved in this matter. However, the OCL did not call the CAS caseworker as a witness at trial, nor did the OCL provide the Superior Court of Justice with any CAS records, assessments, or reports. I have reviewed the complete disclosure, which confirms that the father committed violence against the children and sexual abuse against the younger child, Mariam Zayed, warranting an extensive assessment.
22. (Attached Tab#09 in brief exhibit - B): or at CanLII (Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0> On 16 February 2024, Justice Tobin delivered a final judgment following a sixteen-day trial in the London, Ontario, Superior Court of Justice – Family Court. The OCL had been involved in the proceedings since May 2023 and had conveyed the children’s wishes to the Court. That order was never appealed, and the father did not oppose the OCL’s involvement until he filed his recent motion.
23. Re‑litigating or suppressing that evidence now amounts to a collateral attack that is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and abuse of process.
24. It appears that, after a year and a half, the respondent is attempting to manufacture a basis to reopen the trial by seeking to expunge all materials submitted by the OCL since May 26, 2023. Such a request effectively amounts to a collateral attack on the February 16, 2024 judgment and would serve as a de facto appeal of that order, driven solely by malicious intent.
25. In the same tab#09, confirms in paragraph [8]-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. For example, at the trial management conference, the cross -examination of the father was expected to take 4 hours. Amicus cross-examined the father for 1.75 hours. The mother’s cross-examination of the father was approximately 7 hours before I stopped it from continuing. The intention was not to have a trial by stopwatch but some limits had to be imposed, especially when the relevance of much of the evidence provided did not appear helpful to the determination of the issues raised in this case.” Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), at para 8, https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par8.
26. Based on the foregoing, I had concerned that the OCL built its position before the Court without allowing the children to be heard or considering the assessments prepared by the psychologists and who have worked with the children and the mother for an extended period, as well as without adding the CAS. Instead, the OCL based his defence solely on a She’ie Expert’s report that is not aligned with our Sunni Muslim faith, even though stronger, more relevant evidence was available to represent the children’s interests.
27. By mentioning the religion in the respondent’s motion dated May 12, 2025, I wish to point out that the father previously retained lawyers- Nevien AlMa’refi- of the same faith (Shia) in Kuwait when I was self-represented before moving to Canada. He also hired a Shia expert from Kuwait, “Jumanah A. Behbehani” who testified at trial. Therefore, religion is not an obstacle for him.
28. (Attached in exhibit – A-3): This document appears as the Respondent’s Exhibit (p. 44, Form 14A – Affidavit, Respondent Zayed, May 12, 2025) attached to his motion. On November 14, 2024 (after the trial), the Respondent emailed the current Children’s Lawyer, Kimberly Doucet ( doucett@cohenhighley.com ), and Lisa Heslop (lheslop5@uwo.ca ), with a cc to their assistants at Cohen Highley, providing a link to my petition on Change.org: Lubna Yousef Aldahleh: https://chng.it/7dV7zn2cDY (Seeking Justice: Freedom—Appoint Justice Sharon Hassan on My File; Stop Discrimination)
29. At the same exhibit in the previous paragraph, the respondent states “Don’t you think that someone who can deceive and manipulate over 1,000 adults into supporting her with these well-crafted and consistent lies could easily influence, manipulate, and alienate her own children? She seems to take pleasure in meticulously crafting these stories, ensuring every detail fits her narrative. Those familiar with the case can easily spot the lies, but outsiders may be convinced by her fabrications. Lubna has clearly invented events that never occurred to bolster her story and make it seem credible. This is one of the reasons I oppose the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL). Given more than three years of abduction and over five years of brainwashing and alienation, our case requires a thorough assessment and evaluation before considering the children’s views and preferences. After reviewing Lubna's petition and its 20 updates, it’s clear that she has made numerous accusations and threats against many individuals and organizations. These include the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL), judges in Canada, Kuwait, and Jordan—such as Justice J. Paul R. Howard and Justice Sah—courthouse staff, and all her previous lawyers in both Kuwait and Canada, as well as other parties involved in the case. This behavior may have influenced the actions of Justice Tobin, Amicus, and Mishael during the trial. It seems they extended the proceedings, possibly to appease her and avoid public accusations. She uses threats and intimidation tactics against everyone in a crude and unethical manner. She even published our court orders publicly without my consent and continues to exploit the children to gain more fans and followers.”. It is apparent that the respondent harbors deep hostility toward his ex-wife—which is unsurprising, given his failure to be a good husband for many years; it follows that he is unlikely to behave responsibly as an ex-husband. This raises the followings:
a) It appears the respondent is worried about my petition and claims that I “deceive and manipulate over 1,000 adults into supporting me.” In truth, I never intended to deceive anyone; sharing the reality of anti-Muslim hatred is a responsibility of my faith. I am grateful for every signature on my petition and pray that Allah grants each supporter the highest place in Paradise. However, the main goal is in the process, INSHALLAH.
b) If I am like that, why has he persistently begged the applicant’s family and relatives to convince her to remarry him—even immediately after the trial concluded?
c) Why does he concern from publish our court “orders” publicly without his consent?! I spread the facts of the manipulation which the people did not respect the Canadian primary pillars of the superior of Lord and respect the law (only based on the hatred of Muslims sunnah who practice their faith and trust on ALLAH). Also, our esteemed government supports the freedom of expressing our own opinion and experience in our esteemed country, Justice Canada.
d) The respondent continues to accuse the applicant of lying. In the trial judgment, whose testimony was described as “too honest” to be credible? Who, then, was deemed credible at trial? (Attached Tab#09 in brief exhibit - B): or at CanLII (Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0>
1) Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), at para 20, <https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par20> [20] Amicus submitted, and I agree, that the mother could be faulted for being too honest.
2) Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), at para 21, <https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par21> [21] Counsel for the Children’s Lawyer characterized the mother as “honest to a fault”.
3) Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), at para 40, <https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par40> [40] I find the mother’s evidence to be more credible and reliable than the father’s. Her evidence regarding the recollection of events was more vivid than father’s and accords more with the documentary record.
4) Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), at para 41, <https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par41> [41] I am satisfied that the mother was more willing to speak the truth as she believed it to be than was the father.
5) Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), at para 42, <https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par42> [42] For these reasons, where the evidence of the parties differ relating to the issues, I prefer the evidence of the mother unless otherwise stated.
e) The respondent accuses the applicant of attacking everyone involved in this case. I believe this behavior is also evident in this motion, where he challenges everyone who was at the trial—even though he agreed to their presence—despite their attacks on the religion of Islam during the trial and earlier through their evidence in the case. This is confirmed by the evidence he himself provided, which shows his continued communication with the OCL and that he did not reject their involvement or meeting the children even this month (i.e., after he filed a motion to remove them from the case, he still continues to communicate with them and seeking their help).
30. (Attached in exhibit – A-1): This document appears as the Respondent’s Exhibit (p. 44, Form 14A – Affidavit, Respondent Zayed, May 12, 2025) attached to his motion appears that the respondent is still communicating the OCL even after requesting leave to remove the OCL and all their materials on February 25, 2025 before Judge Bezair. His attached email dated May 09, 2025, (Couple days ago), and another attached email dated November 16, 2024, which is after the trial and he did not file any oppose of the previous trial judgment or even dispute their involvement. It is clear that the respondent insists to involve them; however, by refusing the children to speak with them or with any one for more investigations take a long time exceeds the 6 years, the respondent finds himself “besieged” of all the evidence against him in all the final orders in Kuwait between 2019-2021 and the judgment by the Superior Court of Justice – Family Court in 2024. He did not grant the time and the care of his “new wife and their children” who live with him in Kuwait as much as he waste the time to harassment and abuse us by complex the cases in Canada.
From: zakarixxxxxxx
To: "Kimberly L. Doucett"; "Lisa Heslop"
Date: Friday, May 9, 2025 8:47:10 PM
Attachments: image001.png image002.png image003.png
Hi Kim and Lisa,
Did you meet the children? If you want to be sure you have all the facts, please review the below information and shared documents before meeting with them.
Best Regards,
Zakaria Zayed
From: zakaxxxxxail.com <zakxxxxxxail.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2024 1:48 PM
Hi Kim, Hi Lisa,
I hope you are well.
Did you meet with my children yesterday? Please find attached a video recording from today's (Saturday) call, which did not align with the scheduled Sunday calls. Here are my observations:
1. Last week, she did not comply with the scheduled parenting time video call, despite my calling her four times (please review the below evidence).
2. Today's call lasted only 10 seconds.
3. My daughter Lujain did not attend or appear on the call.
4. When my daughter Mariam appeared, someone abruptly ended the call, not allowing her to speak.
5. I attempted to call back, but Lubna did not respond. Given this, I would like to address the following:
1. I continue to believe that Lubna is pretending and acting to gain sympathy and support. I strongly urge you to involve a specialist who can properly assess and evaluate the situation. If that is not feasible, please assign a professional who is equipped to handle it. For your reference, I am attaching a message from Lubna sent on June 11, 2023, via the Talking Parents application.
2. I sincerely hope you have not encouraged, assisted, or legitimized Lubna's attempts to block my communication with my children, as Mr. Sam Mishael did. I would appreciate clarification on these concerns.
31. (Attached in exhibit – A-2): This document appears as the Respondent’s Exhibit (p. 46, Form 14A – Affidavit, Respondent Zayed, May 12, 2025). Another email from the respondent, dated June 3, 2024, at 9:23 p.m., was sent after the trial in which he claimed he had refused OCL involvement due to bias and prejudice. Despite that, the email contains 34 requests seeking help from the OCL and concludes with the statement:
“Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated!”
32. (Attached in exhibit – A-4): Pages 17 and 18 of the OCL’s Form 14A affidavit, sworn by L. Heslop on July 21, 2023, state that the OCL investigated and met with the psychologist and therapist involved with our family. However, it appears the OCL purposely omitted calling those professionals as witnesses at trial. Under Ontario law, the Court cannot give any weight to a third party’s statements unless that person testifies and is subject to cross-examination during proper court proceedings.
Children’s expressed wishes
96. Baraa’s expressed wishes were clear, emphatic, and consistent between interviews. He wishes to remain in Canada, in the care of his mother. He does not want to have any further contact with his father. Based on Baraa’s lived experience, he fears and believes his father will continue to act abusively toward him. He also believes and fears the abuse would be more severe because he has shared his experiences and his feelings about his father and because his mother would not be there to care for him. Baraa also believes that should he have to return to Jordan, his maternal family would send him back to Kuwait. Baraa stated he feels safe with his mother, and being separated from her would be intolerable and devastating.
97. Lujain’s expressed wishes were clear, emphatic, and consistent between interviews. She wishes to remain in Canada, in the care of her mother. She does not want to have any further contact with her father. Based on Lujain’s lived experience, she fears and believes her father and paternal family will continue to act abusively toward her. She also believes and fears the abuse would be more severe because she has shared her experiences and her feelings about her father and paternal family and because her mother would not be there to care for her. She also believes that should she have to return to Jordan, her maternal family would send her back to Kuwait. Lujain stated she feels safe with her mother, and being separated from her would be intolerable and unbearable.
COLLATERAL CONTACTS
98. Ashley Ekhoumu, social worker to Lujain and Miriam Zayad, Muslim Resource Centre for Social Support and Integration (MRCSSI).
Ms. Ekhoumu stated she has been a social worker at MRCSSI since October 2021.
Ms. Ekhoumu has been involved with Ms. Aldahel, Lujain and Miriam since February 28, 2022. She completed a developmental assessment for Miriam (age 3 at that time) and found her to be “way past her developmental age).
99. Ms. Ekhoumu said that Lujain was doing well developmentally, making good friends at school and presented as “very mature.” She described her as gentle, soft spoken and very intelligent. She said Lujain shared experiences she witnessed in Kuwait and told Ms. Ekhoumu that she did not want to return to Kuwait.
100. Ms. Ekhoumu stated during the course of her involvement with the family she observed Ms. Aldahel with the girls. She described Ms. Aldahel as a great mother. Ms. Ekhoumu described on occasion when she needed to speak to Ms. Aldahel alone. “Miriam was clinging to her mom. I asked Miriam to stay outside [the interview room]. She kept banging on the door and coming in and kissing mom. They are really close to their mom.”
Dr. Collin King, school and child clinical psychologist to Baraa Zayad
101. Dr. King stated he received a referral to see Baraa for assessment from MRCSSI in May 2022. He explained that he works in a teaching clinic where services are provided by graduate students under his supervision. He met with Baraa on several occasions between May and November 2022 to assess his appropriateness to receive treatment at the clinic.
102. Dr. King described Baraa as a resilient, strong young man, who, relative to other children his age was very mature. He commented on Baraa’s advanced social and emotional development and capacity to “open-up to responsible, caring adults and articulate what he needs in lots of ways that other children his age would not be able to or have had to. He is a very mature youngster with a clear sense of what he wants and needs.”
103. Dr. King stated Baraa described witnessing his mother being hit by his father and subjected to emotional abuse while in Kuwait.
104. Over the course of the assessment Dr. King had opportunities to see Baraa and the Mother interact, as
well as Baraa interact with his sisters. He described the Mother as a “very caring and dedicated parent”
who was appropriately concerned for Baraa and his future. He stated that it was evident that Baraa had a
“really strong connection” with his mother and siblings. He said, “He has a lot of concern about their wellbeing and takes a lot of pride in being able to manage and care for the family in the ways young people do when appropriately tasked.”
Dr. King stated that separation from his mother would be a significant loss for Baraa “given the strength of the connection and relationship that I saw over the course of my work with the family.”
33. During the trial, the applicant mother informed the judge that crucial assessments and evidence from Kuwait about the danger posed by the father had been concealed. Unfortunately, her concerns were dismissed on the basis that she was “not” a lawyer, resulting in a repeated miscarriage of justice.
34. On the same day the trial was set to begin (November 14, 2023), the OCL filed a motion seeking to add his friend as amicus curiae and to prevent me, a self-represented litigant, from filing materials or cross-examining witnesses—despite my clear right under Canadian law to do so. It appears this effort was motivated by hatred of my religion and faith.
35. (Attached in exhibit – A-5): Pages 3 and 6 of the OCL’s Form 14A affidavit, sworn by L. Heslop on 13 NOV 2023, she wrote:
09. On November 4, Mr. Misheal inquired with the Applicant as to the status of her Affidavit and she responded that she did not finish it and she raised concerns about not having fair time to finish it.
10. On November 6, 2023, Mr. Misheal wrote Ms. Aldahleh for an update on her affidavit, and she did not respond to the inquiry.
11. On November 7, 2023, the Applicant mother sent the following to the Respondent's counsel, “Oh my dear, Bayly, I advise you, as a Lawyer, to review the orders and your responsibility and rights. I believe that you as a Lawyer DOES NOT HAVE the right to investigate me, nor to track us. Your client has only the right of what the previous orders granted him not more than this, despite the fact that he granted them by the fraud and agreed with the dishonest Salim. Anyway, you can ask your client about my Lord's award for me of the sixth sense. I know what all of you plan for, and what has planned to the trial. You all already prepared for everything in advance. BUT all of you think that you can do anything you want.
I will tell you something just for your knowledge, there is NOTHING to happen by you, Salim, Sam, Abeer, Kelsey , Zakaria, or any one has the power to harm us even the whole world "EXCEPT" if my Lord allows for that to happen for "a wise reason" from my Lord, ONLY from him, Almighty. I am grateful to my Lord that he allowed to put me in jail to protect my children. The Lord's plan is the perfect plan at all. While the Kuwaiti thought they were clever and had the power to harm us, my Lord always used his power to defend us, and he will do Almighty. So, even if you guys think that the evil and immoral people are winners. I would like to tell you that even if the test is harder than what I was expecting, I am still believing that everything is for a good reason from my Lord even if the surface is bad. I know that I have a week before the planned time. I must do as much as I can of my duties. Whatever will happen, I believe that will be my Lord's plan, and I am totally satisfied for his choices. Don't forget to comply with your limit!”.
12. On November 8, 2023, the mother posted comments on Caseline. Below are some of those comments: evidence be presented to this Honourable Court in a manner according to the Rules of Civil Procedure and the rules of evidence. This approach ensures that the Court can make informed decisions that genuinely prioritize the children's welfare.
d. There are complex evidentiary issues such as the introduction and scope of expert evidence related to the issues of the dispute between the parties, in which an Amicus would be able to assist the Applicant mother and/or this Honourable Court (other examples include issues of relevancy, probative value, steps to be able to call such evidence).
e. We do not believe that will occur given the mother’s inability to represent herself in a focussed manner and given her concerns about bias in the process. Amicus would help ensure that all evidence and concerns are canvassed appropriately.
f. The mother is presenting as feeling under siege, including in terms of her religious beliefs. It is a difficult balancing act to address expert evidence about Sharia in the laws of Kuwait and Jordan as mandated by the case law. Such a balancing act would be facilitated by Amicus who could raise concerns in a legally informed manner and help ensure that personal religious beliefs are respected in these fraught times. In addition, the mother does not seem to fully appreciate the role of the OCL.
g. This area of law is extremely complex as it involves not only examining laws, legal tests and international human rights, but also knowing the difference between Hague and non-Hague return order proceedings.
h. This case is about jurisdiction and the question of serious harm and the OCL is concerned about the process being sidetracked to managing the process, rather than dealing with the issues. The OCL is also concerned about the mother’s position and thus that of the children, being prejudiced by her level of anxiety and lack of trust in the process, which again, may be based in her own lived experiences.
16. The OCL is concerned that the question of Amicus be raised for consideration by this Honourable Court in order to ensure a fair process to all parties but also that an appropriate use of limited judicial and other resources occurs. It is important that the matter be litigated with a focus on the best interests of the children.
36. I don’t think that the role of Ms. Heslop and Mrs. Sam in this matter to assessment the “her level of anxiety and lack of trust in the process, which again, may be based in her own lived experiences.”. It seems there are many attempts to silence the voices of Muslim mothers and their children. Additionally, my own lived experiences are nobody’s business—only true believers understand the strength of faith in difficult trials. My Lord, ALLAH Almighty, never mentions anxiety in the Qur’an; on the contrary, ALLAH commands us to be strong in faith and trust when facing oppression, as the stories in the Qur’an confirm. This is not about anxiety—it is about faith and trust in ALLAH in our hearts, and no one can steal that from us. .............>>>>>>
TO BE CONTINUED