The court granted an annulment, finding the claimant’s consent to marriage was overborne by sustained pressure, threats, and isolation and was therefore not genuine.
Section 31 of the Ontario Marriage Act can validate a marriage solemnized outside Ontario; courts may consider the parties' subjective intention to comply with the Act; on the facts the parties solemnized their marriage in good faith, intended to create a legally binding marriage, and cohabited as spouses, so the 1998 Tennessee religious ceremony is deemed a valid marriage under s.31 and the parties are spouses for purposes of the Family Law Act.
The court dismissed a joint desk-order application to annul a marriage, finding no evidentiary basis for annulment and noting the procedural requirements were not met.
Majority: Under the Family Law Act s.2(1)(e)(iii) a couple only enters a "form of marriage" "in good faith" if they intended to become legally married; because the parties deliberately chose not to enter into a legal marriage and knew they were not complying with marriage law, they are not "spouses" under the Act and are not entitled to property‑division relief.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia held that adultery under the Divorce Act can include same-sex sexual conduct, and granted the petitioner a divorce.
The court granted a declaration of nullity where a marriage was never consummated and the plaintiff proved practical impossibility of consummation arising from deception and psychological repugnance.
The court held that 'good faith' in s.1(1)(b) of the Family Law Act requires an intention to comply with the Ontario Marriage Act; a religious ceremony deliberately conducted outside the Marriage Act cannot give rise to spouse status under the Family Law Act, so the equalization date is the date of the later civil marriage (July 20, 1994).