Persaud Hussain LLP is a litigation-based domestic violence and family law firm. We advocate for survivors of abuse — working to equalize the power imbalance in court, pursuing every available protection order, and fighting to ensure your children are never used as leverage against you. We appear at all levels of Ontario's courts from our offices in Toronto and Markham.
What brings you here today?
We handle all areas of family law, with domestic violence at the core of our practice. If you are being abused, controlled, or threatened, we act decisively on your behalf and your children’s behalf — in court, and urgently when it matters most.
Domestic violence pervades every area of family law — and we treat it as the serious, life-altering crisis it is. We act for survivors who have been assaulted, coerced, threatened, financially controlled, or isolated by a partner. We apply for emergency protection orders, restraining orders, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and urgent parenting motions. We appear at all levels of Ontario's courts and we do not wait when safety is at stake. If you are afraid, call us.
Comprehensive guidance through contested and uncontested divorces, separation agreements, and the legal dissolution of common-law relationships — including those involving abuse or coercive control.
We advocate for decision-making responsibility and parenting time arrangements that put your children's safety first. When there is violence or coercive control in the relationship, the children's physical safety is the paramount concern in every motion we bring.
Ensuring fair support arrangements. We understand how financial abuse and economic control are used as tools of domestic violence, and we work toward restoring financial independence for survivors.
Representing parents in Children's Aid Society investigations and hearings. We advocate for parental rights while keeping the safety and wellbeing of children at the centre of every position we advance.
Equalization of net family property and matrimonial home rights. For survivors of domestic violence, pursuing the family home and fair asset division is often an essential step toward safety and stability.
Preparation of wills and powers of attorney to protect you and your loved ones with clear, legally sound documents.
Persaud Hussain LLP has been practising family law in Ontario since 2011. Domestic violence is at the core of what we do. We act for survivors of abuse in divorce and separation, decision-making responsibility and parenting time disputes, spousal and child support, property division, and child protection proceedings. If you are in danger, we move quickly.
Our lawyers appear at the Ontario Court of Justice, Superior Court of Justice, and the Court of Appeal of Ontario. We have offices in Markham and Toronto, serving clients across the Greater Toronto Area.
Jared Persaud is a founding partner of Persaud Hussain LLP. He holds a J.D. from Cooley Law School and a Master of Laws (LLM) from Osgoode Hall Law School, and has completed a certificate in family mediation from Harvard Law School. He has been practising family law since 2011 and attends court three to four days per week.
Jared is a domestic violence lawyer who works to equalize the power imbalance in litigation — working to ensure clients who have experienced abuse are not disadvantaged in court proceedings. He serves as a Director of the York Region Law Association and chairs its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee. Since 2017, he has served as an assessor at Toronto Metropolitan University's Law Practice Program, supervising articling candidates in civil litigation, family law, real estate, and immigration. He has lectured for the Ministry of the Attorney General's Mandatory Information Program and acts as Duty Counsel at the Newmarket Superior Court of Justice, Toronto Superior Court of Justice, 311 Jarvis Ontario Court of Justice, and 47 Sheppard Ontario Court of Justice.
Nazish Hussain is a founding partner of Persaud Hussain LLP. She holds a J.D. from Cooley Law School and a Master of Laws (LLM) from Osgoode Hall Law School. She has been practising family law since 2011.
Nazish serves as Duty Counsel at 311 Jarvis Ontario Court of Justice and as an assessor and mentor at Toronto Metropolitan University's Law Practice Program. She has lectured for the Ministry of the Attorney General's Mandatory Information Program and has chaired the Committee for Awareness of Violence Against Women.
A litigation-based family law firm with offices in Toronto and Markham, serving the Greater Toronto Area since 2011.
We do not take a passive approach to domestic violence files. We apply for emergency protection orders, restraining orders, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and urgent parenting motions — assertively and without delay — with the safety of our clients and their children as the driving priority.
When your matter is urgent, we respond accordingly. We can bring emergency motions and assist with safety planning on short timelines.
We prepare every file for the possibility of a hearing or trial. You'll know your options and what to expect before stepping into a courtroom.
We explain things in plain language and keep you informed. No unnecessary jargon, and no bills that catch you off guard.
In decision-making responsibility and parenting time matters involving family violence, children's physical safety is never a secondary consideration. We fight to put your children’s safety at the centre of every order sought — and to keep them out of situations that place them at risk.
We serve one of Ontario's most diverse regions. We're familiar with the cultural dynamics that often shape family law disputes in the GTA.
Guide the lawyer through the maze. Collect evidence along the way and dodge opposing counsel. Make it to the courthouse to win!
Arrow keys or WASD on desktop
Not sure if you qualify for Legal Aid? Call us at (416) 826-1155 and we'll help you find out, or visit legalaid.on.ca.
Hold a Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) certificate? All consultations are free. Call us at (416) 826-1155 to confirm.
Use our Family AI Assist to get answers or start your intake process — any time of day, completely free.
Please review and agree to our disclaimer before using the Family AI Assist.
Please review and agree to our disclaimer before using the Family AI Assist.
Family AI Assist provides general information only. It does not constitute legal advice, does not create a solicitor-client relationship, and should not be relied upon without first consulting a qualified lawyer.
We keep it simple. All payments are made by e-Transfer — fast, secure, and no processing fees.
Send your payment directly to our e-Transfer address. Please include your name and matter type in the message field.
Important — Password Required: We do not have auto-deposit enabled. After sending your e-Transfer, please email us the password at jaredp@persaudhussain.com so we can accept your payment promptly.
Lawyers who appear in court regularly — and whose decisions get reported — are lawyers who push the boundaries of the law for their clients. These are ours.
Persaud Hussain LLP has been appearing in Ontario courts since 2011 — at the Ontario Court of Justice, Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, and the Court of Appeal. Litigation is not a sideline for us. It is what we do.
A reported decision means a judge found the legal arguments significant enough to put on the record. Our published cases reflect clients whose positions we fought for without hesitation — advancing arguments that now inform how other courts approach the same issues. We are not afraid of a hard fight — and when it comes to protecting people against domestic violence, we do not back down.
Knowing how to navigate a courtroom — how judges think, how to structure an argument under pressure, how to respond when things don't go to plan — comes only from showing up, case after case. That experience belongs to your file from day one.
The mother — a Venezuelan-born woman who only spoke Spanish — had been sponsored to Canada by the father. After fleeing to a women's shelter with the couple's two young children in June 2023, following a police complaint of assault, the father brought a motion seeking primary care of the children. He relied heavily on extensive CAMH mental health records, arguing the mother's psychiatric history made her an unfit primary caregiver. A CAMH clinician had noted, however, that the mother's presentation "may be more so in keeping with delusional disorder" but also that "it is possible that she is simply a victim of emotional and verbal abuse." The father had reportedly threatened to have the mother and her son deported — a threat the medical records document as a source of profound distress.
The court dismissed the father's motion in its entirety. Justice Jarvis found that while there were legitimate mental health concerns, there was no credible evidence that the mother was not a good and loving parent or that she could not appropriately care for the children while taking her prescribed medications. Critically, the court recognized that her mental health struggles were not proof of unfitness — they were, in large part, the product of her circumstances: no family in Canada, no income, no assets, uncertain immigration status, and a relationship in which her own doctors suspected emotional and verbal abuse. The children remained in their mother's primary care at the shelter. The father was ordered to pay $2,266 per month in child support and $2,176 per month in spousal support, and the mother was also awarded $2,500 in costs.
This case concerned a jurisdictional dispute over where parenting proceedings should be heard. Shortly before commencing her application in Markham, the mother had unilaterally relocated the child from Ottawa, where the family had lived. The father filed his own application in Ottawa. The court was asked to determine whether the child's habitual residence remained in Ottawa for the purposes of the Children's Law Reform Act. The court found that the mother's relocation did not alter the child's habitual residence, as the father had not acquiesced and had acted without undue delay in commencing proceedings. The mother was ordered to return the child to Ottawa within ten days, with police enforcement authorized if she failed to comply. The decision reinforces the principle that a parent cannot unilaterally relocate a child to manufacture a more favourable jurisdiction.
This brief endorsement from the Divisional Court addresses a procedural motion brought by the respondent in an underlying family law matter. The Divisional Court, which sits as an appellate court for certain family proceedings, issued its ruling in writing. The matter concerned questions of practice and procedure arising from the litigation below.
This costs endorsement arose from contested matrimonial proceedings in which success was divided between the parties. After hearing written submissions from both sides, the court considered the outcome of the litigation and the conduct of the parties in determining the appropriate costs award. Where success is divided in family law proceedings, courts have discretion to apportion costs accordingly rather than awarding them in full to one side.
This endorsement concerns an urgent motion request in a parenting matter. The court addressed the need for expeditious case management and considered the circumstances giving rise to the urgency of the motion. Urgent motion requests in parenting cases require the moving party to demonstrate that the matter cannot wait for a regularly scheduled hearing, particularly where the safety or welfare of a child may be implicated.
This costs endorsement followed contested parenting proceedings. After hearing submissions from both parties, the court considered the relevant factors under the Family Law Rules in assessing the appropriate costs order, including the outcome of the proceeding, the conduct of the parties, and the reasonableness of the positions taken. Costs in family law are discretionary and courts balance the principle of indemnification against the need to encourage reasonable behaviour in litigation.
This matter addressed issues of child support, spousal support, and parenting arrangements following the breakdown of the marriage. The court heard the matter on October 24, 2018, and considered the parties' respective financial circumstances in determining appropriate support obligations. Courts in such proceedings apply the Federal Child Support Guidelines to determine quantum of child support and apply the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines as a reference for spousal support, while separately assessing the best interests of the children in respect of parenting arrangements.
This matter involved an application concerning child support arrears and retroactive support. The court heard the matter on September 29, 2022, and addressed the respondent's obligations with respect to outstanding support payments. Retroactive support orders require courts to consider the reasons for the delay in seeking support, the payor's conduct, the circumstances of the child, and any hardship a retroactive award might cause. Arrears enforcement proceedings similarly engage considerations of ability to pay, the child's needs, and the overall fairness of the outstanding amounts.
This frequently cited decision addressed the appropriate costs award following three unsuccessful motions brought by the mother. The father sought full recovery costs of $23,995. The court reduced the award to $10,000, applying the principle that costs must be reasonable and proportionate — not simply a reflection of the total amount billed. In reaching that figure, the court considered the mother's challenging personal circumstances, including a high-risk pregnancy, the procedural deficiencies in her approach, and the behaviour of both parties throughout the proceedings. The decision is a useful authority on the limits of full recovery costs in family law and the role of financial circumstances in determining quantum.
This case required the court to determine the valuation date for the equalization of net family property — a threshold issue that determined both the financial outcome for the parties and whether the husband's claim was barred by the limitation period. The husband proposed December 15, 2015 as the valuation date; the wife proposed February 14, 2012. Neither date was accepted. Based on a written declaration made by the husband that demonstrated his intent to end the marriage, the court set the valuation date as August 18, 2013. The decision involved a careful assessment of credibility, as both parties had given conflicting accounts of when the marriage broke down. The court weighed objective evidence and common sense against the husband's history of deceit and the wife's inconsistent testimony, ultimately anchoring the valuation date to the most reliable contemporaneous evidence available.