Intro
In 2009, two Ahmadi’s sued each other in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada, Ahmed v. Hakim. Nasir Ahmed is the plaintiff and ABDUL HAKIM, CHAUDHRY ABDUL KAREEM DOGAR a.k.a. DOGAR CHAUDHRY ABDUL, HARINDER SIGH GAHIR, TARIZ T. SHAH, AMER HAKEEM DOGAR and THE ITALIAN CANADIAN SAVINGS & CREDIT UNION LIMITED are the defendants. There are 3 Dogar brothers involved in this, Chaudhary Abdul Kareem Dogar, Amer Hakeem Dogar and Abdul Chaudhary Dogar, some of the names might be mixed up. This was posted by Affaf Azhar in Aug-2026.
In this case (which began in 2004), Nasir Ahmed is claiming that he was kidnapped by friends of Abdul Hakim, Chaudhry Abdul Kareem Dogar, and Amer Hakeem Dogar, and persons in Pakistan named Humayoun Rashid Chaudhary and Mahmood Waheed Dogar to kidnap the Plaintiff, hold him against his will for 23 days, subject him to harsh and cruel abuse and defraud him of title to his condominium …and … to fraudulently withdraw the sum of $3,000 from the Plaintiff’s TD bank account. He claims damages from them in the sum of $500,000 for kidnapping and false imprisonment. The plaintiff was kidnapped at gun point and taken to the Rasheed Hospital and held hostage.
In the end, the Judge ruled in 2009 that this was some kind of illegal immigration scheme, designed to bring Karim’s daughters into Canada, at whatever cost, and by whatever means. The scheme failed.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2009 CanLII 1364 (ON SC) | Ahmed v. Hakim | CanLII
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2009/2009canlii1364/2009canlii1364.html?resultId=6c6aea4b40144618bda17c351b802eaa&searchId=2026-08-25T00:43:31:597/fe3da8d89d6b454f8d40a294a0908667&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAJQWhtYWRpeXlhAAAAAAE
Ahmed v. Hakim, 2009 CanLII 1364 (ON SC)
Source:
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Date:
2009-01-16
File number:
05-CV-289445PD1
Citation:
Ahmed v. Hakim, 2009 CanLII 1364 (ON SC), <https://canlii.ca/t/22606>, retrieved on 2026-08-25
COURT FILE NO.: 05-CV-289445PD1
DATE: 20090116
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
| B E T W E E N: | ) | |
| ) | ||
| NASIR AHMED | )
) ) |
Howard L. Shankman, for the Plaintiff |
| ) | ||
| Plaintiff | ) | |
| ) | ||
| – and – | ) | |
| ) | ||
| ) | ||
| ABDUL HAKIM, CHAUDHRY ABDUL KAREEM DOGAR a.k.a. DOGAR CHAUDHRY ABDUL, HARINDER SIGH GAHIR, TARIZ T. SHAH, AMER HAKEEM DOGAR and THE ITALIAN CANADIAN SAVINGS & CREDIT UNION LIMITED
|
)
) ) |
Raineesh K. Sharda, for the Defendants, Abdul Hakim and Chaudhry Abdul Kareem Dogar a.k.a. Dogar Chaudhry Abdul |
| ) | ||
| Defendants | )
) |
|
| ) | ||
| ) | HEARD: January 5 – 9, 2009 |
MESBUR J
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction:
[1] At the commencement of this trial, counsel for the plaintiff suggested that each side’s version of the facts is “too fantastic to be credible”. He is absolutely right. He also suggested that as a result of this, the court must therefore conclude that only one side is telling the truth. In that, he is absolutely wrong. The facts as the parties presented them are indeed too fantastic to be credible. I have no doubt events transpired involving the parties. Unfortunately, I found virtually none of their evidence credible, and am in the situation where I cannot determine, even on the balance of probability, what actually happened.
Nature of the claim and counterclaim:
[2] This leaves me with the claim and counterclaim as pleaded, and I must therefore approach my task on the basis of whether either side has met its onus of proving the necessary facts, on the balance of probabilities, to support the relief sought.
[3] In the statement of claim, the plaintiff claims damages of $500,000, special damages of $5,000, aggravated damages of $100,000 and punitive damages of $100,000. He initially also sought a declaration that the transfer of his condominium property to the defendant Amer Hakeem Dogar was “fraudulent and null and void”, as well as consequential relief directing Land Title records to be amended to show him as the owner of the property, as well as a declaration that the mortgage in favour of the defendant credit union was unenforceable against him. He did not pursue the relief in relation to title to the condominium at trial.
[4] The plaintiff’s claim arises out of what he characterizes as a conspiracy among the defendants Abdul Hakim, Chaudhry Abdul Kareem Dogar, and Amer Hakeem Dogar, and persons in Pakistan named Humayoun Rashid Chaudhary and Mahmood Waheed Dogar “to kinap the Plaintiff, hold him against his will for 23 days, subject him to harsh and cruel abuse and defraud him of title to his condominium …and … to fraudulently withdraw the sum of $3,000 from the Plaintiff’s TD bank account.” He claims damages from them in the sum of $500,000 for kidnapping and false imprisonment.
[5] The defendants Abdul Hakim and Chaudhry Abdul Kareem Dogar deny the allegations, and have counterclaimed against the plaintiff. They seek special damages of $500,000, aggravated damages of $100,000, and punitive damages of $100,000. They say that the plaintiff owed the defendant Karim Hakim (that is Chaudhry Abdul Kareem Dogar) $50,000 for failing to perform services he was retained for, and which he promised to return. They say the plaintiff suggested that he transfer his condominium to the defendant Karim Hakim “or his family members purchase the propery in satisfaction of the outstanding debt.”
[6] The defendants conclude their counterclaim by stating that the plaintiff’s claim is “frivolous and vexatious and intended to cause grave embarrassment to these Defendants and their families. They have lost significant amount of money and therefore they plead that the Action be dismissed with costs against all Defendants.”
[7] At the time of trial, the action had been settled against the defendants Harinder Singh Gahir and Tariz T. Shah, who are both lawyers, as well as against the defendant credit union, and the defendant Amer Hakeem Dogar who is the son of the defendant Abdul Hakim. The remaining parties are the plaintiff, Nasir Ahmed, sometimes known as Nasir Ahmed Soofi, and the defendants Abdul Hakim and his brother Chaudhry Abdul Kareem Dogar also known as Dogar Chaudhry Abdul, and originally referred to in this action as Karim Hakim. Since many of the people involved in the events giving rise to this litigation are referred to by many different names, and in different fashions, and since many have names that are extremely similar, I will refer to each in the following fashion.
[8] I will simply describe the plaintiff as “the plaintiff”. The plaintiff has a nephew in Toronto, also called Naseer Ahmed. I will refer to him as “Naseer”. The plaintiff has another nephew, the husband of his niece. This nephew sometimes resides in Pakistan and sometimes in Toronto. I will refer to him as “Ahsam”. I will refer to the defendant Abdul Hakim as “Abdul”, and his brother, the other remaining defendant, as “Karim”. Their nephew, who resides in Pakistan will be referred to as “Hamayoun”. I will refer to Abdul’s son as “Amer”, and to Karim’s daughters who testified at trial as “Qudsia” and “Saima”. I mean no disrespect to anyone in referring to them in this fashion; indeed, this is generally how they all referred to each other at trial. I hope this nomenclature will make it easier to follow these reasons for my decision.
[9] Each side paints a very different picture of events that transpired among the various people I have mentioned above. I will begin by describing each version of the facts.
The two versions of events:
The plaintiff’s story
[10] The plaintiff is a 75-year old Pakistani-Canadian. He has lived in Canada since the 1960’s, and for a long time was a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in Toronto. This community represents a particular sect of the Muslim faith.
[11] The plaintiff has had various jobs in Canada. He has done sheet metal work on aircraft wings, pumped gas, sold beauty products door-to-door, provided accounting services for a warehouse firm, and then worked at McDonalds Restaurants for about 11 years, ending as an assistant branch manager.
[12] In the early 1990s, the plaintiff purchased an interest in a chicken farm in Sudbury, which he apparently had for only about a year. He then returned to Toronto where he began some kind of catering business. After divorcing his first wife, he remarried in Pakistan in about 2001. That marriage ended in divorce as well, and he has now married a third wife.
[13] From about 1993 onward, the plaintiff volunteered as an office assistant in the office of his religious community. He became a well known elder, and community members would come and ask him for advice on many matters. He denies, however, that he ever charged for any of this advice, and also denies he ever provided any immigration advice or immigration services to anyone.
[14] In 1997 the plaintiff purchased the condominium on Dixon Road which is at the heart of this litigation. Since he did not qualify for a mortgage on his own, he says his nephew Naseer agreed to co-sign the mortgage with him. In fact, Naseer was on title to the condominium, as a joint tenant with the plaintiff, pursuant to the plaintiff’s written direction to his real estate lawyer. Naseer remained on title until the property was eventually transferred to Amer.
[15] By about 1998, the plaintiff was retired, and began to spend more of his time in Pakistan. He went in 2001 to get married, and says he stayed there for about two years. He returned to Canada to clear his bills, and then went back to Pakistan in 2003, staying for about six months or a year.
[16] In 2004, the plaintiff returned to Pakistan for another visit. In early 2005, he was staying with his niece and her husband Ahsam in a subdivision of Lahore. The plaintiff says he was conducting business buying and selling used cars. On February 2, 2005 he was on his way to catch a bus to meet with a client to deliver the sum of 500,000 rupees (about $10,000) to him. He was carrying the cash, in thousand-rupee notes in the back pocket of his trousers, loosely hidden by his shirttails. The essence of the plaintiff’s claim is that while he was waiting for the bus, he was kidnapped from the bus stop on a main thoroughfare of Lahore, in the middle of the afternoon. He says he was taken at gunpoint, in a black Honda vehicle, to a private hospital nearby, the Rasheed Hospital.
[17] Once there, he claims he was first taken to an office on the lower level where five people were waiting. He says a gentleman he later discovered to be Hamayoun Rasheed demanded 2.4 million rupees from him, telling the plaintiff he was his kidnapper.
[18] The plaintiff says he responded he did not have that kind of money, whereupon Hamayoun searched his pockets, and removed his belongings, including a wallet, containing two blank cheques, Canadian and Pakistani bank cards, a Pakistani identity card, a Canadian citizenship card, Ontario health card, social insurance card, and both his Canadian and Pakistani passports. He claims the kidnappers also found the 500,000 rupees in his pocket.
[19] The plaintiff testified that when Hamayoun found the 500,000 rupees, he demanded that the plaintiff fill out the blank cheque he had from his Pakistani bank account in the amount of 1.9 million rupees, and to date it January 19, 2005, and to make it payable to Hamayoun. Under duress, the plaintiff said he did so. He claims that after an hour or so, he was told there was insufficient money in the account, and he should make out the cheque on his TD bank account in the amount of $50,000 CAD payable to “Abdul Hakim Dogar”. The plaintiff post-dated this ransom cheque to March 31, 2005. He says this was on the instructions of Hamayoun.
[20] This cheque bears many subsequent alterations. The date of 31 March 2005 is crossed out, as is another date of “7-05-2005”, leaving a final date of “7.02.05”. The amount of the cheque was changed to three thousand dollars, and in the payee’s name, the name “Dogar” is crossed out. This left the cheque, with all the changes initialled by the plaintiff, eventually being drawn in the amount of $3,000 CAD on 7.02.05 in favour of the defendant, Abdul Hakim.
[21] After making out the cheques, and telling his kidnappers he had insufficient funds to cover them, the plaintiff alleges he then told them he had property in Canada. He says at this time he provided his kidnappers with details about this condominium, which had about $50,000 of equity in it. The plaintiff says he suggested to the kidnappers that he be released so he could return to Canada, sell the property, and provide the demanded ransom. The plaintiff also says that some of the kidnappers suggested that his organs should simply be harvested for sale, but they eventually rejected this idea, perhaps because of his age.
[22] After these events, the plaintiff says he was then transferred to another branch of the Rasheed Hospital, in another area of Lahore. There he claims to have been held hostage for more than twenty days, and subjected to torture. In his pleadings he alleges he was strung upside down from a hook in the ceiling, by a rope tied around his legs. At trial, he says he was tied to a chair, and his legs were tied and raised with a rope so that they were parallel to the floor. He says he vomited as a result of this treatment. He described only one incident of this torture.
[23] After this, the plaintiff says he was taken to another room in the hospital, equipped with beds, and there he was held for the balance of his captivity. He claims to have been tied to a chair during the day, and to a bed at night. He was fed, receiving a tray of food from hospital staff whenever all the patients in the hospital did.
[24] On the 4th of February the plaintiff claims he was forced to sign a power of attorney in favour of the defendant Abdul, permitting him to take all necessary steps to sell the plaintiff’s Toronto condominium. He says the notarial seals and stamps on the document were all added after he signed under duress. He says he signed a second version of the power of attorney, this time on special stamped paper, stamped “Forty Rupees”. He says that Abdul and Karim participated in a conspiracy to defraud him of his apartment through the means of the kidnapping and the power of attorney.
[25] The plaintiff says he was finally released from captivity on February 23, whereupon he walked for about four hours, covering 20 kilometres, until he reached the workplace of his niece’s husband, Ahsan. He claims he told Ahsan his tale of kidnapping, and was taken to dinner.
[26] The plaintiff claims to have complained to the police, who refused to investigate. He then consulted with a lawyer in Lahore to bring court proceedings to compel a police investigation.
[27] Exhibit 7 at trial is a copy of a document before “The Session Judge with The Powers of Justice of peace, Lahore”, and is titled “Petition under 22-A, 22 B&25 of CRPC for Registration of Criminal Case” and shows the plaintiff as petitioner against the District Police officer, Lahore and the Station House officer Police Station Defence, Lahore Cantt. as respondent.
[28] The evidence concerning this document was very limited in terms of what it actually represents and how it was created and by whom. What the document says, however, is that the plaintiff is “seeking registration of the case by alleging that on 2.2.2005 at about 3.p.m. when he was waiting for a bus near Kashi Restaurant some person came on Honda City Black colour car, pushed him into the car and kept him in a flat of 4th floor of a building, snatched the following documents:
- Canadian Citizenship card,
- Ontario Driving licence,
- Ontario health card,
- Canadian social insurance card,
- Pakistani Identity card,
- Toronto Dominion Canada trust Band card,
- Standard chartered Bank card,
- Pakistani Passport,
- PIA ticket,
- Cash Rupees 37000/-
- Mobile Phone
- Standard Charter [sic] Bank Lahore Cheque and
- Toronto Dominion Canada Trust Cheque
and also obtained the signataures [sic] on some cheques regarding the Standard charter [sic] Bank Toronto Domain[sic] trust in Canada and then on 23.2.2005 they left him at the cross of Ferozepur Road and Model Town Road.”
[29] The document states that the “SP Cantt Division Lahore … reached to the conclusion that no occurrence took place as the place of occurrence is a busiest place and if some person were abducted from the same place, many persons would have to be gathered there”.
[30] The document goes on to recite, “This court has heard the counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner who tried to convince the court regarding the occurrence. In view of the statement of the petitioner this court has been convinced that the FIR [first information report] should have to be registered … and thereafter the police has to inquire about the occurrence.” The document also notes that the petitioner had informed the court that without an FIR he would suffer damage because he would not be able to get his passport and other documents replaced.
[31] The document concludes with what appears to be the signature of the Sessions Judge, and has a final paragraph which reads:
In the light of the above discussion, the police is directed to register a case according to law and procedure. The petition is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room after completion.
Announced: 18.4.2005
[32] The plaintiff says he took the court’s directive to the police, who still refused to investigate. He says he therefore returned to the court and complained to the judge who agreed to go with him personally to the police station the next day, but the next day his Canadian travel documents came through, and he was obliged to return immediately to Canada through Islamabad. Apparently no further steps were taken to investigate the kidnapping in Pakistan.
[33] It is noteworthy that the beginning of the document refers to earlier court appearances and what transpired at them. The first is dated April 7, 2005, and shows the plaintiff’s counsel as present, but the plaintiff as absent. It says the police have not been able to complete their investigation because the plaintiff “did not appear before the SP as per order of this court.” The plaintiff was directed to do so on “11.4.05 at 11 a.m. and it will be last chance for him.”
[34] The next appearance is dated April 13, 2005, and shows the petitioner as present in person, but advising the court his counsel was not available. The plaintiff was directed “to produce his counsel. To come up for arguments on 18.4.2005.” The final portion of the document, which I have already described, bears the date of 18.4.05.
[35] In all, the plaintiff remained in Lahore for about two months after his release from the Rasheed Hospital, returning to Toronto on April 22, 2005. During that period, he stayed at Ahsan’s home in Lahore.
[36] On his return to Canada, the plaintiff says he went immediately to his condominium and then discovered the locks had been changed. In fact, title to the condominium was transferred into the name of Amer on April 4, 2005. It was after the plaintiff returned to Toronto that he retained counsel, and commenced this action on May 10, 2005. At some point he says he learned that Hamayoun, his kidnapper, was the nephew of Abdul and Karim, and the cousin of Amer, the new registered owner of his condominium. From this I infer he concluded that Abdul, Karim and Amer were connected to the kidnapping in some way, although he claims to have known Karim and Abdul only slightly.
[37] Initially, the plaintiff sued not only Abdul and Karim, but also the two lawyers who had acted on the transfer out of the plaintiff’s name, the transferee, Amer, and the Credit Union which had provided the financing to Amer to complete the purchase.
[38] The essence of the plaintiff’s claim is that through a conspiracy orchestrated by the defendants he was kidnapped and tortured, and while under duress was forced to sign the various documents I have described above. He says these documents were used by Abdul and Karim to transfer his condominium into Abdul’s son Amer’s name. The plaintiff says all of them conspired to fraudulently deprive him of his condominium. The plaintiff is no longer seeking the return of his condominium, but instead claims that as a result of being falsely imprisoned at the behest of Abdul and Karim he has suffered damages.
The defendants’ story
[39] Karim is a retired colonel of the Pakistani army. He served with the army for about 30 years. He is an educated man, having earned a Bachelors degree from Punjabi University of Lahore. Karim and the defendant Abdul are brothers.
[40] Karim came to Canada in December of 1998 and claimed refugee status. As I understand his evidence, he was given refugee status on August 17, 1999, which entitled him to apply for landed immigrant status. In September of 1999 he applied to become a landed immigrant. He also made application for landed status for his four daughters he had left behind in Pakistan. He wished to sponsor them as dependents. He followed up with immigration authorities in November of 2000 to determine the status of his application and in September of 2001 immigration authorities wrote to tell him that his three eldest daughters did not qualify as dependants. He was advised they could apply independently to come to Canada.
[41] Karim says he then appealed to the Minister of Immigration to reconsider the case of his daughters, but the appeal was refused. It is unclear when this occurred, but at that point, he says, he became worried and wondered what to do, and had no choice but to seek advice to help him get his daughters from Pakistan.
[42] Karim is a member of the same Ahmadiyya sect as is the plaintiff. Karim says that his brother Abdul had met the plaintiff when the plaintiff worked briefly at an employment agency where Abdul also worked. Karim says that through the Ahmadiyya Community he was introduced to the plaintiff as someone who could provide assistance with immigration matters. Karim says that after his immigration appeal was rejected, he consulted with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff assured him he was very experienced in immigration matters, and could assist with bringing Karim’s three older daughters to Canada. Karim alleges he was quoted a fee of 8 Lakh (or 800,000 rupees) as a fee for each girl, for a total of 24 lakh, or 2.4 million rupees. Although he asked the plaintiff to lower the fee, Karim says the plaintiff refused, and insisted on the full amount. Karim says that the plaintiff promised to bring the girls legally to Canada, and if he failed to do so, the fee would be returned.
[43] Karim says he did not have 2.4 million rupees, so requested help from others. Karim testified that his brother who lives in Sweden arranged to have his son Naeem Rasheed deliver 600,000 rupees to Karim’s daughters in Pakistan. Karim says he had a tenant in his home, and he obtained 600,000 rupees from him in exchange for forgiveness of the tenant’s future rent. He says the tenant was paying him 15,000 rupees per month to rent the lower level of Karim’s house. The balance, Karim said, was already in Pakistan, since he left his pension money with his daughters. It is in this way he says the 2.4 million was amassed.
[44] Karim says his daughters gave the plaintiff the money on September 12, 2003. Saima, the eldest, and Qudsia, the youngest, both testified that the money was given to the plaintiff. Both also testified that the plaintiff came to their home in Pakistan on a couple of other occasions as well, when he took photographs of them, and asked for their papers.
[45] By the summer of 2004, Karim’s daughters were still in Pakistan. Karim says that in 2004 the plaintiff was back in Canada but planning to return to Pakistan. The two men met at the mosque. Karim says the plaintiff told him he had not been successful in arranging immigration for the daughters, but he promised to do “his level best” to do so. Karim says that the plaintiff promised “categorically” to “definitely” return the money if he was not successful. The plaintiff asked to be given additional time to arrange the immigration.
[46] Karim says he told the plaintiff that his nephew Hamayoun could be found at the Rasheed Hospital, close to where the plaintiff stayed in Lahore. Karim says he instructed the plaintiff to repay the money to Hamayoun if the plaintiff was unsuccessful in arranging the daughters’ immigration.
[47] Karim went on to say that in fact, the plaintiff did not succeed with the immigration, and on January 19, 2005 the plaintiff “remembered his promise”, and delivered a cheque for 1.9 million rupees payable to Hamayoun in partial repayment of the fee. This cheque, he alleges, was dishonoured, whereupon Hamayoun told the plaintiff it was a criminal offence to proffer a cheque with insufficient funds to pay it. Karim says that the plaintiff then told Hamayoun he had money in Canada, and Hamayoun could have an equal amount.
[48] Karim says in early February of 2005 he had a phone call from the plaintiff who told him it was difficult to arrange money from Pakistan, so he proposed to sell his condominium instead, in order to provide the funds. He suggested that if Karim were interested in buying the condominium, this could settle the debt. Karim says he was not interested in the condominium himself, so he directed the plaintiff to deal with his brother Abdul, who then handled everything.
[49] Karim claims he knows nothing about the transfer of the condominium, since this was between the plaintiff and Abdul. He says, however, that when the $50,000 down payment for the condominium[1] was made to the plaintiff in Pakistan, the plaintiff very kindly returned the 2.4 million rupees to Karim, by giving the money to Hamayoun who then delivered it to Karim’s daughters, and that settled the matter as far as Karim was concerned.
[50] Karim finally obtained his landed immigrant status in 2007. From the time he arrived in Canada until he became a landed immigrant, he says he was unable to return to Pakistan. He did so for the first time in late 2007, and finally saw his daughters after a more than nine year separation. Karim says that it was on this visit he learned, for the first time, of what had transpired when the plaintiff had attempted to get the daughters to Canada.
[51] Karim said that his daughters told him that the plaintiff had arranged tickets on Gulf Air for the three eldest daughters to begin their journey for Canada on September 23, 2003. They were told to go to the airport, and he would meet them, which he did. The plaintiff was there with another two persons, who took the daughters’ luggage, and provided them with their travel documents, passports, and boarding cards.
[52] Karim says his daughters reported that the plaintiff told them they were on their own. The boarded the airplane, and flew to Abu Dhabi. There, when they presented their travel documents they were detained, and then told the passports had a problem. They were deported back to Pakistan.
[53] Saima, the eldest daughter, testified through videoconferencing from Pakistan. She said she met the plaintiff for the first time in April of 2003, and then a few more times between then and September 23, 2003. She claims that she personally handed the 2.4 million rupees to the plaintiff on September 19, 2003. She says the plaintiff promised to obtain visas for her and her sisters to come to Canada.
[54] When they came to the airport they boarded a plane for Abu Dhabi, and arrived there after two or two and a half hours. Saima said that they arrived in Abu Dhabi at 11 in the evening and were waiting in the waiting lounge for their connecting flight to England. From there, she said, they expected to continue on to Canada.
[55] Saima testified that she and her sisters were not permitted to board the plane for England from Abu Dhabi. They were stopped at the counter, and told there were doubts about their passports. They were told that the airline would have to make inquiries for a couple of hours, and if there were no problems, they would be sent on another flight.
[56] Saima said that at about 4 o’clock they were sent to another lounge where they waited for 17 or 18 hours, and then they were sent back to Lahore. She said they arrived in Lahore at about 5 or 6 in the morning, and at the airport the plaintiff’s “people” were there, got them clear, and they went home.
[57] Saima said that she met the plaintiff again after two or three weeks, and he said he would try again. She says she refused, and never saw him again. She did say, however, that in March of 2005 she met with Hamayoun who she describes like a brother or cousin. She says she received 2.4 million rupees from Hamayoun and believed that Hamayoun got the money back from the plaintiff.
[58] Saima testified that her father would call two or three times a month. Nevertheless, Saima did not discuss any of this with her father until he came to Pakistan in the fall of 2007. She said she told him then because he came to Pakistan to visit her and her sisters, and “there was no worry left”, and that is why they told him.
[59] The youngest daughter, Qudsia, immigrated to Canada last fall. She also testified. She identified the plaintiff, and confirmed that she recognized him. She claims they first met in early 2003, when he came to their home in Pakistan and said he wanted to take her sisters to immigrate to Canada. She said he took some photos, and also took 2.4 million rupees from her oldest sister. She confirmed that her sisters were to travel on September 23, but she did not go with them to the airport. She saw them the next day, when they came back.
[60] Qudsia says when her sisters returned, there was much tension and worry, so she could not discuss anything with them. According to her, her father would telephone her and her sisters in Pakistan once a week. She also confirmed that she did not tell her parents anything about these events until they came to Pakistan at the end of 2007. She said first, it was because it would have upset them, and second the plaintiff said he would tell them himself.
[61] Abdul, like his brother Karim, came to Canada in 1998. He is also an educated man. He holds two masters degrees from universities in Pakistan, one in commerce and one in economics.
[62] Abdul testified that his connection to this case is that the plaintiff telephoned him from Pakistan and said that he wanted to sell his condominium in order to pay off the debt he owed to Karim, but that Karim was not interested in acquiring it, so Abdul should take care of it.
[63] Since the plaintiff was in Pakistan, Abdul testified that he told the plaintiff it would be necessary to have a power of attorney to facilitate a sale. Abdul got a specimen of a power of attorney, faxed it to the plaintiff in Pakistan, and told him to have it prepared in Pakistan, appear before a notary, and have the document notarized and witnessed.
[64] Abdul says that once he got the power of attorney from the plaintiff, they discussed price. Since the plaintiff owed Karim $50,000 (roughly the Canadian dollar equivalent of 2.4 million rupees), and there was a mortgage of $55,000 or more on the property, they apparently discussed a price of $105,000. Abdul says the plaintiff told him there might be overdue property taxes, condo fees and the like, so Abdul asked him how those would be paid. He says the plaintiff suggested that he had written a cheque, but since he had only one cheque with him, he could amend that cheque, and cover the extra costs with that. Abdul alleges that the cheque for $50,000 originally made out to “Abdul Hakim Dogar”, and subsequently changed to $3,000 payable to “Abdul Hakim” represented the funds for these additional expenses.
[65] At trial, a photocopy of this cheque, with a note attached to it, was entered as Exhibit 4. The note reads as follows:
To The Manager TD Canada Trust
Sir:
I am giving this cheque to Mr. Abdul Hakim to take 3000 Canadian dollars from my account. I have wrongly filled this cheque and due to some corrections I have signed on the cuttings. Kindly accept this cheque and cash it to Mr. Abdul Hakim. Thanks.
“signed”
Nasir Ahmad [sic]
[66] There is no doubt the plaintiff signed this note. There is also no doubt the note was actually written out by someone else. The original cheque was not produced. I cannot tell who cashed it, or when it was cashed.
[67] Abdul says the result of the plaintiff’s giving him the power of attorney was to allow him to sell the property and to do whatever he needed with it. The power of attorney has specific conditions and restrictions, stating:
This power of attorney is limited to all the matters relating to the sale of the subject property, collect the sales proceeds, and negotiate with the bank to pay off the mortgage and if necessary to obtain the mortgage from any other instituation [sic] further more, my attorney has the right to also transfer the subject property into his own name, property known as 2402 Dixon Road, #380, Toronto, On M9R 1T3[2]
[68] Abdul then went to a lawyer, Mr. Shah, and showed him the power of attorney, and understood an agreement of purchase of sale was necessary. He says Mr. Shah told him he could not be a buyer, since he was the attorney holder for the seller, and this would put him into a position of conflict. He was also told to retain another lawyer, since Mr. Shah would act on behalf of the purchaser. All the parties to the transaction signed an agreement of purchase and sale on February 18, 2005, with a proposed closing date of February 21. This was changed to March 2, and the property ultimately closed on April 5.
[69] Abdul then retained another lawyer to handle the transaction on his behalf as the vendor. He learned from this lawyer that someone else was registered on title, so he tried to reach the plaintiff. He says he conveyed this to his brother’s daughter, and she arranged for the plaintiff to call him. Abdul says the plaintiff did call him, and confirmed his nephew Naseer was the other person on title, and promised to contact Naseer and tell him to cooperate with Abdul. Abdul says the plaintiff gave him Naseer’s telephone number, whom he then contacted, and told he must go to sign the transfer documents. Naseer attended the lawyer’s office and signed the agreement of purchase and sale (and presumably the transfer as well) in mid February.
[70] The transfer was registered in early April 2005. Abdul says that his son Amer decided to acquire the property, and the delay in closing occurred because there was a delay in Amer’s obtaining mortgage financing. In particular, he said, the mortgagee was looking for proof of payment of a down payment, and Amer was arranging the necessary funds.
[71] Abdul says that his son Amer told him it was necessary, as the buyer, to pay the seller. Amer wanted to have a “straight deal”, and pay the down payment to the plaintiff, who could then make arrangements to pay off his debt to Karim.
[72] Amer confirmed that he was the purchaser of the condominium. He says that he spoke to his cousin Hamayoun in Pakistan to borrow the funds for the down payment. He said the delay in closing was due to some difficulty in arranging mortgage financing. When he applied to banks, they were not prepared to lend concerning the particular condominium complex in question, and thus he had to approach a credit union instead.
[73] Amer says he knew nothing about money owing to his uncle Karim, and simply knew that his father was representing the plaintiff on the deal, because the plaintiff was out of the country at the time.
[74] According to Amer, he needed $50,000 to pay the balance of the purchase price, over and above the mortgage financing he was obtaining to discharge the existing first mortgage. He says he approached his cousin Hamayoun in Pakistan for a loan, and arranged for Hamayoun to give the money directly to the plaintiff. He did this notwithstanding the agreement of purchase and sale provided for the deposit to be paid to the purchaser in trust, and also provided for a deposit of $45,000 not $50,000.
[75] Amer points to a copy of a cheque, drawn on an account at the Soneri Bank, in the amount of 2.425 million rupees, payable to the plaintiff, and dated 4-2-05 as proof of payment of the deposit to the plaintiff. Exhibit 31 is a photocopy of this cheque, on a page with the following notations: “Attention Mr. Vince”, and “50,000 Canadian dollars @ Rs=48.50”. Amer says Mr. Vince was his mortgage broker, and the cheque was faxed to him by Hamayoun to show the deposit had been paid. The cheque also says it is “Part Payment of 2402 Dixon Road #380 Toronto”, the transposed address of the plaintiff’s condominium. Exhibit 9 is another photocopy of this cheque, with a stamp reading “Cash Paid, 12 March 2005”. The original cheque was not in evidence. I have no evidence of who cashed it, or whose account it was drawn on.
[76] Amer says he paid back his cousin by transferring a residential lot in Pakistan to him. They have nothing in writing, even though Amer, who works with the TD Bank is well aware there are usually loan agreements to evidence transactions. He said it is common to deal with family members without papers. He said Hamayoun was his cousin, and they had dealt with money before, and had always dealt verbally.
[77] Amer said it was his understanding that his cousin was to write the cheque and it was supposed to be paid to the plaintiff. Hamayoun told him this had occurred, but Amer has no personal knowledge of it.
The alleged settlement agreement
[78] Although Amer had purchased the plaintiff’s condominium in April, the plaintiff’s possessions remained in the apartment. The plaintiff says that before he was released from captivity, Hamayoun told him not to worry about his things, they would be taken care of. The plaintiff made arrangements to come with a mover to obtain his possessions on June 29. Abdul met him at the apartment, and they spoke. Abdul says the plaintiff asked if there were any possibility he could keep the property, if Amer would sell it back to him. The plaintiff asked to leave his things in the apartment.
[79] Abdul and the plaintiff arranged to meet again on July 2. Apparently the plaintiff came with one of his relatives, and Abdul brought two other brothers with him, Abdul Waheed Dogar, and Abdul Haleem Tayyab. According to Abdul, they all reached an agreement whereby the litigation (which the plaintiff had commenced May 10) would end, and the plaintiff would re-acquire the condominium for $116,000. Abdul wrote up what is called a “Mutual Agreement” between Amer, Abdul and Karim, and “all other parties defendants etc.” and the plaintiff.
[80] The agreement recites it has been mutually agreed that the plaintiff will withdraw all cases against all the defendants. It goes on to provide that Amer has agreed to sell the condo to the plaintiff for $116,000 and the plaintiff will arrange mortgage financing within 30 days, and close the sale by August 5, 2005. Amer agrees to hand over the keys immediately to the plaintiff as a tenant, and the plaintiff will pay $950 per month rental until the sale closes.
[81] The agreement was signed by the plaintiff, and witnessed by his relative Mohammed, and Abdul’s brother Tayyub. Amer signed the document later, since he was not at this meeting. Abdul never signed it, nor did Karim or any of the other parties to the litigation.
[82] There is some question as to whether the agreement was subject to the plaintiff’s obtaining independent legal advice, and some question as to whether certain provisions were added to the agreement later. None of that is relevant, since the agreement, if it is an agreement, could not settle the litigation since it was never signed by the defendants Abdul or Karim, or indeed by the two defendant lawyers, or the defendant credit union. In any case, no one has moved for judgment in accordance with a settlement.
[83] Whether matters were settled or not, or whether the plaintiff was to reacquire the property, he was given the keys on July 2, and moved back in. He paid no rent, although he did sign an “Owner Registration Form” on the same day in which Amer is shown as registered owner, and the plaintiff is shown as Tenant. He is described in the document as the “Lessee occupying Unit No. 2402 at 380 Dixon Road”, and signed an undertaking that he and “all other residents and guests at the unit will comply with the provisions of the Condominium Act, the Declaration, the By-Laws and the Rules and Regulations relating to the use of the unit and common elements”. The plaintiff does not suggest he signed this document under duress.
[84] The plaintiff vacated the condo some months later, having never paid any rent, mortgage, or other expense during the time he occupied it.
The flaws in the evidence:
[85] This leads to me my analysis of the evidence, such as it was. I found none of the witnesses credible. The documentary evidence was woefully lacking. Significant evidence that could or should have been called was not. I will discuss this more fully below.
[86] I was unable to believe any of the witnesses on any material issue. In chief, each gave a carefully rehearsed story that essentially fell apart on cross-examination. I will list only a few of the problems with the credibility of each witness, in order to illustrate why I am unable to believe any of them.
The plaintiff’s evidence
[87] The plaintiff’s evidence was rife with inconsistencies. For example:
- In the claim, the plaintiff says he wad “tied up and suspended by the feet from a hook for hours at a time” At trial, he described this as having his feet tied together, and then raised to be parallel to the floor as he was seated on a chair.
- The plaintiff testified that all his identification papers were taken from him, including his Canadian passport. Later he testified that his Canadian passport had been confiscated in Abu Dhabi in 2004 or 2005.
- Although the plaintiff was in Pakistan at the time of the abduction, and says his Pakistani passport was taken, he took no steps to replace the Pakistani passport in Pakistan after his release, but rather says he obtained some kind of emergency travel document from the Canadian embassy in Islamabad. He did not produce a copy of this emergency travel document, nor any replacement Canadian passport.
- Similarly, although the plaintiff alleges he replaced his Pakistani passport on his return to Canada, he did not produce it. Its issue date might have served to corroborate some of his evidence.
- Although the plaintiff testified that he was held captive at the Rasheed Hospital, his report to the police and court in Pakistan indicated that he was held in a 4th floor flat.
- Although the plaintiff testified that the kidnappers took $500,000 rupees in cash from him, he only reported the loss of 37,000 rupees to the police and the court in Pakistan. His only explanation for this difference was that he did not want to embarrass the police or the court.
- Although the plaintiff testified his Canadian passport was taken by the kidnappers, he only reported his Pakistani passport as taken in his report to the police and the court in Pakistan.
- Although the plaintiff testified the kidnappers forced him to sign the powers of attorney under duress, he did not mention this to the police or court in Pakistan.
- The plaintiff swore he had no involvement or experience in immigration matters. In fact, the plaintiff was convicted of aiding or abetting someone to contravene section 94(1)(m) of the Immigration Act, and had charges of organizing entry into Canada contrary to section 117(1) of the Immigration Act stayed.[3] He is also subject to a removal order by the US Immigration Court at Buffalo, New York, because he “knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United states in violation of law.”[4] These offences and charges, coupled with the plaintiff business card that describes him as “consultant and advisor” persuade me the plaintiff has both involvement in, and experience with immigration matters, particularly assisting illegal immigrants with entry into countries.
- The plaintiff testified that he did not know Karim or his daughters. He could not explain why Karim’s name and telephone number and the name of his daughter Saima appeared in his diary or telephone book.
- On his release from the Rasheed Hospital, the plaintiff took no steps to try to contact his nephew Naseer to tell him not to sign anything concerning the condominium. On the one hand, the plaintiff said it was too late, because the property was already transferred. On the other hand, the plaintiff went directly to the condominium after arriving back in Canada, and was surprised to find his key no longer worked.
- Although shortly after his release the plaintiff apparently learned who his kidnappers were, he did not report their identity to the police in his complaint.
[88] These are only a few of the inconsistencies, contradictions or implausibilities in the plaintiff’s evidence. I list them to illustrate why it is impossible for me to believe the plaintiff.
The defence evidence
[89] The defence witnesses were no better than the plaintiff. Their evidence was also rife with inconsistencies, contradictions or implausibilities. Again, I list only a few examples.
- The defence suggests that the 2.4 million rupee cheque, drawn on someone’s account at the Soneri Bank in favour of the plaintiff was the down payment on the condominium. The cheque is dated February 4, 2005, a full two weeks before the agreement of purchase and sale was executed. It is also dated the same date as the power of attorney is dated, but the attestation of the Pakistani notary on the power of attorney is dated February 7. No witness explained any of this.
- Similarly, no one could explain why deposit money for the purchase of the condominium would be sent to India, rather than paid in trust to the vendor’s lawyer, as contemplated by the agreement of purchase and sale, or why $50,000 was sent, when the agreement of purchase and sale required a deposit of only $45,000.
- Although Karim was advised by Immigration Canada as early as 2001 that his three older daughters could apply for entry to Canada on their own, he had no explanation as to why he did not take that step. He also had no explanation as to why he did not consult with an immigration lawyer for advice on how his daughters might immigrate to this country. Although he suggests that he instructed the plaintiff to bring his daughters here by legal means, I do not believe it.
- Karim’s evidence that the plaintiff simply “remembered his promise” and repaid the money to his daughters, and that Karim knew nothing else about it, is completely implausible.
- The daughters had no credible explanation of why they would not have told their parents the story of this traumatic event in their lives for over four years, when they spoke on a weekly basis.
- The evidence that the plaintiff owed money to Karim, but it would be repaid by the plaintiff selling the condo to Abdul makes no sense at all. Similarly, having Amer as the purchaser also makes no sense. Ultimately, the suggestion that the plaintiff cashed the Suneri Bank cheque, gave the cash to Hamayoun, who then gave it to Karim’s daughters strains credulity.
- Neither Abdul as vendor, nor Amer as purchaser provided a reporting letter or trust statement on the transaction to show exactly what was paid, and to whom.
[90] The defence witnesses were no more credible than the plaintiff.
The missing evidence
[91] There were also gaping holes in the evidence. Witnesses I would have expected to hear did not give evidence. For example, the plaintiff produced neither of his nephews to testify. His nephew Ahsam, with whom he stayed in Lahore, was under summons to witness, and was apparently waiting outside the courtroom to testify, but when it came time for him to be called, he had disappeared. Counsel rejected the suggestion of my issuing a bench warrant to compel his attendance to testify. There was no explanation of where he went, or why he left.
[92] I assume Ahsam would have been able to corroborate the plaintiff’s story that upon his release from captivity, he walked 20 km to Ahsam’s place of business, and immediately told him the story of his ordeal. The plaintiff also suggested that Ahsam would be able to confirm the sorry physical state the plaintiff was in at that time, with dirty clothes, and overgrown beard. Ahsam was apparently also to corroborate that he recommended the plaintiff contact a lawyer. Presumably, since the plaintiff had been staying with Ahsam and his wife, Ahsam would also have been able to confirm that the plaintiff disappeared for 23 days. I did not hear any such corroboration.
[93] There is also the question of Naseer, the nephew who co-owned the condominium with the plaintiff. He signed off on the necessary documents to transfer the condominium to Amer. Although the plaintiff apparently attempted to serve a summons on him, he could not be located. I find it astonishing that an uncle would not be able to locate the very nephew who had been on title to the property with him. I heard nothing of any attempts to locate him. It would have been helpful to hear from him as to how, and when, he learned of the sale to Amer. He also would have been able to corroborate how he learned of the proposed sale of the condominium. This evidence was lacking.
[94] There were similar lacunae in the defence evidence. Karim and Abdul’s nephew Hamayoun apparently played a pivotal role in all these events, whether in the plaintiff’s version, in which he alleges Hamayoun was one of his captors, or in the defence version in which he facilitated Amer’s purchase of the condominium, delivered the funds to the plaintiff, and then received them back, and paid the money over to his cousins, Karim’s three daughters.
[95] It is Hamayoun, the defendants say, who provided the “down payment” of 2.425 million rupees to the plaintiff, by way of a cheque drawn on an account at the Soneri Bank on February 2, 2005. Although two separate copies of this cheque were made exhibits, the original cheque was not produced. I heard no admissible evidence as to who cashed the cheque, on whose account it was drawn, or where the funds went.
[96] The defendants also allege that the plaintiff returned the 2.4 million rupees to Hamayoun, who then paid the funds over to Karim’s daughters by delivering the money to the eldest daughter Saima. Paying the money in this way, the defendants say, was the plaintiff’s way of repaying the immigration fee to Karim.
[97] I was given no reason why Hamayoun did not testify. Saima, Karim’s eldest daughter, testified by way of videoconferencing from Lahore. I assume Hamayoun could have done so as well. He could have corroborated the transfers of funds, and many other things. He did not.
[98] Similarly, the defence proposed to call the Pakistani notary whose seal and attestation appear on the powers of attorney the plaintiff signed. He was apparently to confirm the plaintiff executed the documents before him, voluntarily, at the court house in Lahore. He did not testify after all.
[99] Karim testified that he did not have 2.4 million rupees of his own to pay the plaintiff’s fee. He said he arranged 600,000 through his brother in Sweden, who arranged to have that money delivered to his daughters. He said he arranged another 600,000 through his tenant, whose rent was forgiven. I did not hear from the tenant to corroborate this unlikely arrangement. I did not hear from the brother, or from anyone else, to confirm that aspect of the story.
[100] None of this evidence was presented. I draw an adverse inference from this failure.
Problems with the documentary evidence
[101] Often, documentary evidence is helpful to a trial judge in dealing with the fact finding process. Unfortunately, that is not the case here.
- I did not have the original cheque for 1.9 million rupees which the plaintiff made out to Hamayoun Rashid Choudhry, dated January 19, 2005, nor was there any admissible evidence concerning the alleged presentment and dishonour of this check;
- The original 2.4 million rupee drawn on the Soneri Bank was not produced, nor was a copy of the back of it.
- There was no documentary evidence of when the other cheques were presented, and if or when they were dishonoured or paid.
- There were no bank statements from plaintiff to show balances in his accounts at the time he was allegedly forced to sign the two cheques.
- The defence produced a note dated February 16, 2005 from the plaintiff to the Rasheed Hospital in which he thanks the hospital for their excellent care during his illness. It is unclear to me how the note was obtained, although the plaintiff does not deny writing it. He says he was forced to do so. I simply cannot tell if he was or was not. As to whether he was a patient in the hospital as opposed to a captive, I assume it would have been an easy matter to obtain admission records if he had indeed been a patient there. No such records were produced.
What the evidence does show:
[102] There are a few things the evidence does show. There is indeed a cheque drawn on the plaintiff’s Standard Chartered Bank account, dated January 19, 2005, in favour of Hamayoun, in the amount of 1.9 million rupees. There was no admissible evidence, however, as to when or if the cheque was presented, by whom, and whether it was honoured or dishonoured.
[103] There is also a cheque drawn on the plaintiff’s TD Bank account, amended several times, but eventually being in the amount of $3,000 payable to Abdul. It seems to have been cashed. It is unclear what the purpose of this cheque was.
[104] There is also an agreement purchase and sale regarding the plaintiff’s condominium, a power of attorney the plaintiff signed in favour of Abdul, authorizing Abdul to deal with the plaintiff’s condominium. There is no question the condominium was transferred to Amer, who now holds it subject to a first mortgage in favour of The Italian Canadian Savings & Credit Union Limited.
[105] Last, there is also clearly a cheque drawn on someone’s account at the Soneri Bank in the amount of 2.425 million rupees, payable to the plaintiff, which says, on its face, “Part payment of 2402 Dixon Ave #380 Toronto”. Again, what is unknown is on whose account it was drawn, who received the funds, and for what purpose.
[106] Unfortunately, what I cannot tell is how, or why these various documents were created, or where or how money might have changed hands, or why.
[107] I also believe that Karim’s three daughters attempted to come to Canada, and were turned back at the Abu Dhabi airport due to irregularities or problems with their travel documents. What I do not know, even on the balance of probabilities, is why or how this occurred, or what everyone’s involvement in the event was, although I do suspect that the money and property transfers and the attempt to get the daughters to Canada are somehow connected.
Conclusion:
[108] As I have said, there is no question a series of events occurred involving the plaintiff, the defendants Abdul and Karim, and various relatives of all of them. The events, whatever they were, resulted in the plaintiff’s condominium being transferred into Amer’s name. I have not been persuaded, on the balance of probabilities, that this occurred as a result of a conspiracy resulting in the plaintiff’s being kidnapped, held captive, and forced into signing the power of attorney that authorized the transfer of the property. As a result, the plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof, and the claim must be dismissed.
[109] Similarly, the defendants Abdul and Karim have claimed significant damages and punitive damages apparently suffered as a result of being involved in this lawsuit. First, I am not aware the being sued is itself a cause of action. I was referred to no case law to support the proposition that it is. Also, Karim and Abdul provided no evidence at all of any damages. Although they allege they have “lost significant amount of money”, there was not a shred of evidence to support this, whether probable or improbable.
[110] The only evidence I heard on the issue of the counterclaim was Karim’s. He testified he has suffered a disgrace for his daughters, paid the plaintiff money but the plaintiff could not pay him, and he is sitting in court with a lot of tension. Abdul gave no evidence on the counterclaim at all, whether as to the cause of action to support it, or any damages suffered.
[111] I must conclude the defendants Karim and Abdul have failed to meet their burden as well. Their counterclaim must also be dismissed.
[112] I am persuaded that the parties were involved in some kind of illegal immigration scheme, designed to bring Karim’s daughters into Canada, at whatever cost, and by whatever means. The scheme failed. What the actual agreement was, I cannot tell. Whether it was breached, or by whom, I also cannot tell. In my view, however, given that the foundation of the lawsuit is an illegal scheme, and given that no party has enjoyed any success, I do not view this as a case for costs. I am, however, prepared to entertain brief submissions on costs if there are offers that might bear on the issue, or other extenuating circumstances.
___________________________
MESBUR J.
Released: 20090116
COURT FILE NO.: 05-CV-289445PD1
DATE: 20090116
| ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
|
|||
| NASIR AHMED
Plaintiff
– and –
ABDUL HAKIM, CHAUDHRY ABDUL KAREEM DOGAR a.k.a. DOGAR CHAUDHRY ABDUL, HARINDER SIGH GAHIR, TARIZ T. SHAH, AMER HAKEEM DOGAR and THE ITALIAN CANADIAN SAVINGS & CREDIT UNION LIMITED
Defendants |
|||
|
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mesbur J. |
|||
Released: January 16, 2009
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Links and Related Essay’s
2009 CanLII 1364 (ON SC) | Ahmed v. Hakim | CanLII
Who is Chaudhry Abdul Haleem Tayyab from Canada? – ahmadiyyafactcheckblog
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Tags
#ahmadiyya #ahmadiyyafactcheckblog #messiahhascome #ahmadiyyat #trueislam
August 26, 2026 at 5:02 am
They are addicted in kidnapping & brainwashing children specially the children of ex-Qadianis in pakistan. The spouse kidnaps the children and divorces the partner according to jammat’s instructions for offering asylums.