The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's divorce application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the applicant was not ordinarily resident in Ontario for the preceding year.
Alternatively, if jurisdiction was found, the respondent sought to amend her answer to include claims for setting aside a marriage contract, spousal support, and equalization, and argued for *forum non conveniens*.
The court found that the applicant was ordinarily resident in Ontario, establishing jurisdiction for the divorce.
However, applying the *forum non conveniens* factors, particularly the avoidance of a multiplicity of proceedings, the court determined that Florida was the clearly more appropriate forum, as the parties and their child resided there and related child-related issues were already being litigated in Florida.
The respondent's motion to dismiss the divorce application was granted.