I grew up in Jamaica, a country once known as one of the most homophobic in the world, where safety often depended on silence and survival demanded constant vigilance. These early realities shaped my understanding of power, belonging, and exclusion. When I later arrived in Canada and made a refugee claim, I carried both the weight of displacement and a resolve to challenge the legal structures that determine which families find protection and which are left unheard.
My academic path reflects this commitment. I completed a Diploma in Paralegal Education with Honours, a BA Honours in Legal Studies, and an MA in Criminology and Social Justice before earning my Juris Doctor at the University of Ottawa, completing my final year at Osgoode Hall. I went on to complete an LL.M. in Dispute Resolution, a Graduate Certificate in Organizational Change and Conflict Management, and Family Mediation Certification.
At Osgoode Hall, my doctoral research examines the colonial foundations of the forum non conveniens doctrine and considers how Canadian transnational family law can be reimagined through decolonial, feminist, Indigenous, and intersectional approaches to better safeguard immigrant, refugee, LGBTQ, and survivor families.
Beyond my research, I lead Simpson Law and Mediation Chambers and co-developed Canada’s first family mediation training program for African, Caribbean, and Black families, advancing culturally responsive and community-informed approaches to justice.
Research
The proposed research will critically examine the doctrine of forum non conveniens within Canadian transnational family law and explore its role in sustaining systemic inequities and reinforcing colonial legal hierarchies. Forum non conveniens operates as a procedural tool allowing courts to decline jurisdiction in favor of what is considered a more appropriate forum. Although framed as neutral, the doctrine often privileges Western legal frameworks and procedural efficiency while disregarding the intersecting vulnerabilities of immigrant, refugee, LGBTQ plus, and racialized families.
When Canadian courts decline jurisdiction, disputes are transferred to forums that may fail to provide effective remedies, deny recognition of family relationships, or lack protections for survivors of domestic violence and discrimination. These transfers deepen legal precarity, reproduce exclusion, and restrict access to justice for marginalized communities.
This research will contend that Canadian courts, by applying forum non conveniens, may reinforce colonial power structures in international family law. It will aim to expose the doctrine’s failure to account for the cultural and legal realities faced by transnational families and propose that a decolonial revision of jurisdictional frameworks is necessary. The study will explore how feminist legal theory, intersectionality, Indigenous legal traditions, and international human rights law can be integrated to develop a pluralistic and justice-centered framework that better addresses the needs of migrant and refugee families.
The proposed research will be guided by three central questions: 1. How does the colonial legacy of the forum non conveniens doctrine perpetuate jurisdictional inequities for marginalized groups in Canadian transnational family law. 2. In what ways can Indigenous legal traditions and decolonial frameworks reshape the doctrine to protect immigrant families, LGBTQ plus individuals, refugees, and survivors of domestic violence in transnational family disputes. 3. How can Canadian courts integrate intersectionality and human rights principles to develop a more equitable and inclusive approach to jurisdiction in cross-border family disputes.
The methodology will adopt a decolonial and interdisciplinary approach combining doctrinal and comparative legal analysis. The research will begin with an examination of Canadian jurisprudence on forum non conveniens alongside the Uniform Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act to reveal how statutory codification embeds assumptions of neutrality while overlooking substantive equality.
It will analyze cases where Canadian courts have transferred disputes to jurisdictions lacking protections for women, children, and LGBTQ plus families, demonstrating consequences for custody, spousal support, recognition of relationships, and personal safety.
Comparative analysis will also be conducted with postcolonial jurisdictions such as South Africa and India, where customary norms, human rights principles, and pluralistic frameworks have been integrated into procedural doctrines. These insights are expected to inform proposals for reform and provide alternative models for Canadian courts.
The study aims to make both theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, it seeks to develop the concept of jurisdictional decolonization by challenging the colonial assumptions embedded in Canadian private international law and reframing procedural doctrines to prioritize dignity, cultural accountability, and equitable access to justice. Practically, it intends to propose a model for reform that includes judicial guidelines for assessing safety, fairness, and recognition before transferring cases. The research will also consider statutory amendments to ensure Canadian courts retain jurisdiction where transfer would undermine substantive equality or expose parties to harm.
By integrating doctrinal scholarship, comparative insights, and an intersectional lens, this proposed research positions itself as a critical intervention in Canadian and global legal discourse. It addresses urgent gaps in transnational family law by proposing an original framework for jurisdictional justice and advancing strategies to dismantle colonial structures, protect vulnerable families, and promote a more inclusive and equitable system of family law in Canada and beyond.