View Single Post
  #5  
Old 05-14-2017, 08:21 PM
trinton trinton is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,705
trinton has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

She does not reside in Canada. She lives in another country. She needs to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement in the Divorce Act of being “ordinarily resident” in Ontario. If you bring her to Canada then she might be able to do something. But until then, I believe this is the case law that would help you

Quote:
Turning to whether Ontario has jurisdiction under the common law test that requires a real and substantial connection, I agree with the parties that, in the context of marriage breakdown, the presumptive connecting factors are necessarily different from those identified by the Supreme Court in Van Breda in the context of a tort case. …

[47] While they differ in their view as to where, in this case, the “real home” or ordinary residence of the mother is, both parties submit that the location of the “real home” or “ordinary residence” should be a presumptive connecting factor. This in my view makes eminently good sense. Ordinary residence and habitual residence are the jurisdictional tests under the Divorce Act and the CLRA, respectively. Accepting the “real home” or “ordinary residence” as a presumptive connecting factor, and having concluded that the motion judge did not err in finding that the mother was not ordinarily resident in Ontario, I agree with the motion judge that “[t]he facts of this case do not support the existence of a presumptive connecting factor that would entitle this court to presume jurisdiction.” The mother therefore did not satisfy the “real and substantial connection test”, and the courts of Ontario do not have jurisdiction over the mother’s corollary claims under the FLA. Given this, it is not necessary to address the parties’ arguments on the issue of forum non conveniens.
Reply With Quote