Igor Yushchenko

This is a post-appeal motion brought by the applicant under Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside an order of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The applicant sought to set aside the court's previous decision, which upheld a trial judge's finding that a Ukrainian divorce decree was valid and recognized in Canada, thus precluding the need for a Canadian divorce decree.

The applicant argued fraud or newly discovered facts, but the court found no new facts or evidence of fraud.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision recognizing a Ukrainian divorce obtained by the respondent in 1998, pursuant to s. 22 of the Divorce Act.

The appellant argued the Ukrainian divorce was invalid due to lack of jurisdiction and notice.

The trial judge accepted expert evidence that the Ukrainian court had jurisdiction and that the appellant had notice, and noted the appellant's reliance on the divorce for tax purposes and delay in challenging it.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's findings or analysis, affirming the validity of the Ukrainian divorce and dismissing the appeal.

The applicant sought to invalidate a foreign divorce obtained by the respondent in Ukraine in 1998, arguing lack of notice, jurisdiction, and residency.

The respondent had since remarried and had a child.

The court considered expert evidence on Ukrainian family law and found that the foreign court had jurisdiction and the divorce was properly obtained.

Applying the Divorce Act and common law principles, the court recognized the foreign divorce, noting the applicant's unreasonable delay in challenging it and the inequity of invalidating it after the respondent's remarriage.

The application was dismissed.