Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court dismissed a summary trial application in a family law dispute, leaving for trial whether a Russian divorce should be recognized and whether limitation periods bar claims.
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of an IAD decision refusing a spousal sponsorship after finding the husband’s Iranian divorce was not valid in Canada.
The motion judge correctly applied the governing principles, reasonably concluded the appeal lacked merit and further delay would prejudice the respondent and the children, and therefore properly refused to extend time to perfect the appeal and to grant a stay; the panel found no error in principle or unreasonable result and dismissed the motion to set aside.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to produce admissible evidence that the 2010 talaq was granted under judicial or adjudicative oversight or to adduce satisfactory evidence of foreign law as required by s.22 of the Divorce Act and the principles in Abraham v. Gallo, so the foreign divorce could not be recognized.
Source excerpt
Beals leaves open unfair forum‑shopping as an analytically distinct exception to recognition of a foreign judgment; the trial judge reasonably found, on the evidence, that the appellant pre‑emptively obtained a Russian divorce to avoid Ontario spousal support and therefore it was open to the court to refuse recognition under s.22(3); no palpable and overriding error was shown, so the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed: the motion judge validly set aside the Consent Orders on independent grounds (fraudulent misrepresentation and facts discovered after the orders); the Bangladesh talaq complied with s.7 and involved sufficient state oversight and a real and substantial connection to Bangladesh and therefore is presumptively valid under s.22(3); the public policy exception did not apply; the judge's consideration of bad faith at the public policy stage was legal error but harmless; costs awarded by the Court of Appeal were fixed at $20,000.
Source excerpt
Appeal allowed: motion judge erred by making dispositive findings on habitual residence and the s.23 serious-harm issue on affidavit evidence alone despite direct conflicts of evidence and without providing a fair opportunity to test credibility through cross-examination or viva voce evidence; the order to return the child and the recognition of the foreign divorce are set aside and the matters are remitted for an evidentiary hearing focused on habitual residence, serious harm and reconsideration under s.40, and for rehearing the divorce-recognition issue.
Source excerpt
Because the applicant voluntarily participated in and litigated the merits before the Omani courts she attorned to that jurisdiction and cannot relitigate those issues in Ontario; accordingly the Omani divorce was properly recognized. Separately, the Superior Court correctly found M. was habitually resident in Ontario as of April–June 2021, so Ontario retained jurisdiction to make parenting orders and to deny the respondent's return application; factual findings were entitled to deference and no palpable and overriding errors were shown.
Source excerpt
The respondent did not provide proof to substantiate allegations of misconduct; the hearing was more consistent with an application (not a trial), so the court applied Tariff C and awarded the successful applicant costs of $2,000 payable in the cause.
Source excerpt
The motion to set aside the Court of Appeal's order under r.59.06(2) was dismissed because the appellant did not allege or provide evidence of fraud or new facts arising after the order; the issue of fraud had been addressed by the trial judge and rejected, the foreign Ukrainian divorce was previously held valid, the BCSC decision relied on was not applicable, and there was therefore no basis to vary the appellate order.
Source excerpt
Explore more
