Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-25-00052439-0000 Date: 2025-11-03 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Fathima Fazla Ahmed Fahim, Applicant – and – Ali Raza Bhatti, Respondent

Self-represented (both parties)

Read: November 3, 2025

Reasons for Uncontested Trial Decision

Mathen, J.

Facts

[1] The parties bring an application to annul their marriage which took place on March 14, 2018, in Toronto.

[2] The record before the court consists of:

a. A Form 8 Application dated October 15, 2025;

b. A photocopy of the marriage license;

c. A Form 14A Affidavit, sworn by the Respondent, dated October 17, 2025.

[3] The parties are each 31 years old.

[4] According to the Respondent, the parties applied for a marriage license in 2015 and pre-paid for a ceremony but "didn't follow through with it". He says that the parties married "in a private ceremony" in Toronto. The Respondent says the marriage occurred "spontaneously". It followed a friend's wedding celebration that the parties attended, together, on the same day (March 14, 2018).

[5] The Respondent further deposes that:

a. the parties "participated in drinking games and celebratory toasts";

b. several friends jokingly suggested that the parties "should get married next" since they "were dressed for it";

c. The friends' encouragement, and "the intoxicated and emotional atmosphere", led the parties to act "impulsively";

d. Accordingly, "later that day, while still under the influence of alcohol, we must have [gone] through with this idea";

e. The decision to marry was made "while impaired and heavily influenced by the intoxicated, celebratory environment and the encouragement of others".

[6] According to the Respondent, the Applicant's parents "recently found some letters while cleaning out their house". Among those letters was the marriage certificate.

[7] The Respondent says that "since the ceremony", the parties have maintained completely separate residences, finances and personal lives.

[8] The Respondent deposes that until the recent discovery of the certificate, the parties "were not aware of the ceremony taking place."

Analysis

[9] I rely on the following analysis from Lowe v. A.A., 2018 ONSC 3509:

[32] Two people seeking to annul their marriage can do so on the basis of the Annulment of Marriages Act (Ontario). This Act imports the law of England related to the annulment of marriages to the province of Ontario. It further states that the Supreme Court of Ontario has jurisdiction for all purposes related to the Act. (The Supreme Court of Ontario was a precursor to the Superior Court of Justice and Ontario Court of Appeal.) The full text of this brief statute is as follows:

Short title

1 This Act may be cited as the Annulment of Marriages Act (Ontario).

Part of law of England, on 15th July 1870 continued as law of Ontario

2 The law of England as to the annulment of marriage, as that law existed on the 15th day of July 1870, in so far as it can be made to apply in the Province of Ontario, and in so far as it has not been repealed, as to the Province, by any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by any Act of the Parliament of Canada or by this Act, and as altered, varied, modified or affected, as to the Province, by any such Act, is in force in the Province of Ontario.

Jurisdiction

3 The Supreme Court of Ontario has jurisdiction for all purposes of this Act.

[33] The Act does not specify the circumstances under which annulment can be sought, nor does it describe how an annulment differs from a divorce. These factors have been developed by the common law.

[10] The difference between a "divorce" and a decree of "nullity" is that a divorce is caused by events happening after a valid marriage has taken place. Nullity is caused by something existing at the time of the marriage: H.R. Hahlo, "Chapter 10: Nullity of Marriage" in Studies in Canadian Family Law (Toronto: Buttersworths, 1972), p. 651.

[11] A nullity itself falls into two categories: (a) cases where the marriage is void ab initio, meaning that it was invalid from the outset; and (b) cases where the marriage is voidable, meaning that the marriage is treated as valid until one of the parties seeks to have it annulled.

[12] The following situations produce a marriage that is void ab initio:

• At least one of the parties is married to another person at the time of marriage;

• At least one of the parties did not consent to the marriage or lacked the mental capacity to do so;

• The parties are related to each other in prohibited degrees;

• At least one of the parties is under the age of majority at the time of marriage; and/or

• The marriage ceremony was incomplete.

Gill v. Kaur, 2019 MBQB 68, para. 41.

[13] A marriage is voidable where, among other things, the marriage was entered into for fraudulent purposes, or the marriage could not be consummated: Gill v. Kaur, supra, para. 42.

[14] In this case, the application asserts that both parties were too intoxicated to consent to the marriage. The parties therefore seek a decree of nullity: a declaration that the marriage was void ab initio.

[15] Annulment remains a valid and necessary remedy in Canadian family law: Lowe, supra at paras. 10-12. Nevertheless, such a decree is not to be granted lightly. Particularly given the liberalization of divorce laws, courts must ensure that annulment is reserved for appropriate cases.

[16] Having considered the evidence, for the following reasons I am not persuaded on a balance of probabilities that the parties' marriage was void ab initio by reason of intoxicated-induced incapacity:

a. In 2015, the parties obtained a marriage license and pre-paid for a ceremony;

b. The Respondent's affidavit does not explain why, at a friend's wedding three years later, the parties would have had that marriage license on their person.

c. The Respondent deposes that the parties got married "later that day" but does not detail the sequence of events. It is unclear how the parties got an officiant to marry them.

d. There is no evidence of how much the parties were drinking and how it affected either or both of them. There is insufficient information to support the conclusion that the parties were so intoxicated as to be incapable of consenting to the ceremony. To reach such a level, intoxication must be very high indeed. Being drunk is not enough.

e. The Respondent's affidavit describes the parties' decision to marry as "impulsive" and heavily influenced by the "celebratory" and "emotional" atmosphere. I find this significant. A person can act impulsively, while retaining capacity. A person can act emotionally, while retaining capacity. I find it more likely that the parties got married "on a lark", than that either or both of them lacked the capacity to form the intention to get married at the time the ceremony was performed. Getting married in such circumstances does not suggest a lack of capacity.

f. There is no evidence from any third parties who might have been present, for example, at the friend's wedding and, later, the marriage ceremony.

g. The Respondent deposes that "since the ceremony", the parties ceased contact with each other. This implies that very soon after March 14, 2018, the parties ended their relationship. I find this implausible.

h. I also find it implausible that the marriage contract was discovered by the Applicant's parents seven years after the fact.

[17] Therefore, I find, the parties have not made out their case that a decree of nullity is warranted. The parties remain free to apply for a divorce.

Order

[18] The application is dismissed.

Mathen, J.

Released: November 3, 2025