COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: Yang v. Xie, 2026 ONCA 598
DATE: 20260824
DOCKET: COA-25-CV-0650
Miller, Wilson and Madsen JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Mei Yang
Applicant (Respondent)
and
Weidong Xie (a.k.a. Moses Su)
Respondent (Appellant)
Weidong Xie, acting in person
Heng (Pandora) Du, for the respondent
Heard and rendered orally: August 21, 2026
On appeal from the order of Justice Audrey P. Ramsay of the Superior Court of Justice, dated April 11, 2015, with reasons reported at 2025 ONSC 2265.
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] In extensive reasons, following a three-day trial of an issue, the trial judge determined that the date of separation was June 20, 2022, as asserted by the respondent, not December 31, 2014, as asserted by the appellant.
[2] The appellant submits that the trial judge made errors of fact and law in reaching her determination. There is no basis for these submissions.
[3] The trial judge carefully and accurately set out the law on the determination of the date of separation. She considered the evidence fully. She found the respondent to be more credible than the appellant and determined that the appellant’s evidence was implausible. She did not accept the appellant’s assertion that the parties separated mere months after their marriage in 2014 and his arrival in Canada, and that they then proceeded to continue cohabitation and maintain joint accounts for eight years thereafter until 2022.
[4] The trial judge did not make the legal errors asserted. She gave effect to the principle that the date of separation is determined based on unilateral not mutual intention. Nor did she err in her treatment of Form 22A: the admission that intimacy ceased is not determinative of the date of separation. Further, there was no error in relying on correspondence between the parties about the date of separation.
[5] The factors for the determination of the date of separation are set out in this court’s decision in Kassabian v. Marcarian, 2025 ONCA 239, 16 R.F.L. (9th) 33, at paras. 25-31. The law is clear that the date of separation determination rests on findings of fact and credibility, and is entitled to great deference: Kassabian, at para. 32. The trial judge considered all of the relevant factors on the evidence before her.
[6] The appeal is therefore dismissed.
[7] Costs are set as $11,885 payable by the appellant to the respondent forthwith.
“B.W. Miller J.A.”
“D.A. Wilson J.A.”
“L. Madsen J.A.”