Daily Archives: January 8, 2009

Remarriage & Foreign Divorce in Ontario

Posted in: "All, Family Law, Legalese Dictionary by Admin | No Comments Thursday, January 8, 2009

You can run to Las Vegas and get married, and your marriage will be recognized in Ontario. What about a divorce?

It turns out that divorce is a serious matter in Canada. Under our Constitution, it falls under the federal jurisdiction, and there are strict limitations as to when a foreign divorce can be recognized.

The Divorce Act provides the following provision:

22. (1) A divorce granted, on or after the coming into force of this Act, pursuant to a law of a country or subdivision of a country other than Canada by a tribunal or other authority having jurisdiction to do so shall be recognized for all purposes of determining the marital status in Canada of any person, if either former spouse was ordinarily resident in that country or subdivision for at least one year immediately preceding the commencement of proceedings for the divorce.

In plain English, this provision prohibits people from running off to a foreign country for a weekend to get a divorce that can be recognized in Canada. Rather, one of the spouses must have lived in the foreign country for at least one year immediately before the start of the divorce proceeding. Needless to say, the divorce must also be granted by a competent court or tribunal in that foreign country.

If you want to get re-married in Ontario after a foreign divorce, you’ll need to satisfy the requirements stipulated under the Ontario Marriage Act:

8. (1) An applicant for a licence who has been previously married is entitled to be issued a licence if such marriage has been dissolved or annulled and such dissolution or annulment is recognized under the law of Ontario and the applicant otherwise complies with the requirements of this Act.

…

(2.1) Before issuing a licence, an issuer may require a person to whom subsection (2) applies to deposit with the issuer such material as the issuer considers relevant to the proof of the divorce or annulment.

In practice, to obtain a marriage license from a municipal government, you’ll need the following in addition to the Marriage License Application :

(1) an original or a certified copy of the divorce decree,

(2) if the decree is in a language other than English or French, a translated copy together with an affidavit sworn by a certified translator,

(3) an opinion letter from a lawyer stating why the divorce decree in question should be recognized in Canada, and

(4) a Statement of Sole Responsibility (an official document) for each previously granted divorce, signed by both parties of the proposed marriage.

If you need an opinion letter regarding your foreign divorce, please do not hesitate to contact me at 416-433-5531.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

“No Pet” Condos vs. “No Pet” Provisions

Posted in: "All, Administrative Law, Animal Welfare by Admin | No Comments Thursday, January 8, 2009

A while ago I posted two blogs (October 14 and September 30, 2008) on “no pet” provisions under the Residential Tenancies Act, saying that tenants in Ontario generally have the right to own pets in their rental, units subject to certain limitations. These limitations generally concern interference of the enjoyment of others in the building or issues of safety or health.

Beyond the previously discussed limitations, if the rental unit is part of a condominium building, the tenant’s right to own pets may also be restricted by the declaration of the condominium corporation. The two cases below provide some insight to the limitations of pet ownership in condo buildings.

In one case+, a couple moved into a rented condominium apartment with their 16-year-old miniature poodle. The declaration of this particular condominium corporation prohibits pets in the building.

Upon the discovery of the dog living in the building, the condo board brought an application before the court, seeking a compliance order against the tenants.

The tenants contended that they had the right to keep their dog in the unit under the Residential Tenancies Act, which stipulates, “No injunction… shall be granted against a tenant based on the provisions of an agreement respecting the presence of an animal in the premises,” subject to certain conditions.

Unfortunately for the tenants, the judge decided that although that section of the Act applies to the tenancy, the RTA only prohibits an order “based on the provisions of an agreement.” Because the order sought by the condo board was based on the declaration of the condominium corporation, and not an agreement, the compliance order was accordingly granted.

In another case*, coincidentally involving the same condominium corporation, the condo board sought to enforce the “no pet” provisions of the declaration against the owner of an indoor apartment cat after the cat had lived in the unit for 10 years. The cat was “invisible” to other unit holders during this 10-year period. The condo board decided to step-up enforcement of the “no-pet” policy only in 2004.

Both the hearing judge and the Court of Appeal declined to grant the order because it would be unfair to enforce the policy against the owner of an indoor cat, particularly after the cat had been living in the unit for 10 years.

+ MTCC No. 949 v. Irvine [1992] O.J. No. 1598

* MTCC No. 949 v. Staib (2005), 205 O.A.C. 15

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,