Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
491 Steeles Avenue East, Milton ON L9T 1Y7
RE: Ani Angelova Antonova, Applicant
AND:
Anguel Neykov Stefanov, Respondent via Zoom
BEFORE: Kurz J.
COUNSEL: Danny M. Bertao, for the Applicant Email: danny.bertao@gmail.com
John G. Cox, for the Respondent Email: john@jgcoxfamilylaw.com
HEARD: February 13, 2026, hybrid court appearance
ENDORSEMENT
Introduction:
1This is a motion by the Applicant wife (the “Wife” or the “Applicant”) which calls upon this court to determine whether the parties’ matrimonial dispute should be heard in Ontario or Bulgaria. In essence, the resolution of this motion amounts to a choice between fairness and comity. This court chooses fairness.
2The Wife moves for the following relief:
a. An order splitting the divorce from the corollary issues in this proceeding, pursuant to r. 12(6) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (the “FLR”);
b. An order declaring that this court has jurisdiction simpliciter over the parties’ claims with respect to the issues of divorce; the corollary issues of decision-making authority and parenting regarding the children; child support; spousal support; equalization; as well as division and/or disposition of family property (the “Claims”);
c. An order declaring that the Respondent husband (the “Husband” or the “Respondent”) voluntarily attorned to this court’s jurisdiction, pursuant to s. 97 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (the “CJA”);
d. An order declaring that Ontario is the forum conveniens for the Claims, pursuant to s. 97 of the CJA;
e. An order restraining the Respondent in personam from continuing with his divorce proceedings in Plovdiv, Bulgaria (the Bulgarian proceedings”) involving the Applicant and the Respondent with respect to the Claims, pursuant to s. 101 of the CJA; and
f. An order against the Respondent in personam that within seven days,1 he provide written confirmation from the Bulgarian court that he has discontinued the Bulgarian proceedings or that that have been dismissed (including any outstanding appeals by the Respondent).
3This motion is brought within the context of a family law application under the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.3 (2nd Supp.) (the “DA”) and the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 (the “FLA”) which the Wife commenced on June 27, 2024. In that application, she seeks, among other things:
a divorce;
child and spousal support;
primary parenting of the parties’ two children;
equalization of the parties’ net family properties;
exclusive possession of the matrimonial home (the “Home”);
partition and sale of the Home;
lump sum support;
a transfer of the interests of the Respondent husband (the “Husband”) in the Home to her; and
a preservation order.
4This motion is brought in response to the Husband’s initiation of divorce proceedings in Bulgaria and the ruling of that country’s highest court, the Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation (“BSCC”). The BSCC ruled that Bulgaria possesses the jurisdiction to determine the divorce, parenting, support and property issues between the parties; primarily on the basis of the Husband’s Bulgarian citizenship. It ruled in that manner despite the fact that the parties lived in Canada for approximately 20 of the 21 years of their marriage, the Wife and children are habitually resident in Ontario, both parties work in Ontario (the Husband remotely) and their matrimonial home is located in Oakville. In its ruling, the BSCC did not analyze whether Bulgaria was the forum conveniens for the resolution of the parties’ dispute. I engage in that analysis below.
Background:
Statement of Agreed Facts
5Much of the background to this proceeding is provided by the helpful Statement of Agreed Facts prepared by the parties’ counsel, dated February 12, 2026. I am thankful for their assistance in this regard.
6In their Statement of Agreed Facts, the parties agreed to the following facts:
Both the Applicant and the Respondent hold dual Bulgarian and Canadian citizenship.
The parties were married on June 10, 2001, in Bulgaria.
The parties relocated to Canada on September 20, 2002.
The Applicant has resided continuously in Canada since September 20, 2002, and in Ontario since July 2015.
The parties have two children: Ellie Angelova Stefanov, born December 14, 2007, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada; and Constantine Radoslav Angelov Stefanov, born April 10, 2011, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada (collectively"the Children").
The Children hold dual Canadian and Bulgarian citizenship and have resided continuously in Canada since birth.
The parties purchased the matrimonial home located at 1357 Roylen Road, Oakville, Ontario L6J 6J3, on November 22, 2021.
The Respondent commenced divorce proceedings in the Plovdiv Regional Court, Bulgaria (Civil Case No. 6578/2024), by filing a Statement of Claim on April 12, 2024.
Service of the Bulgarian proceedings on the Applicant was effected pursuant to the Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (HCCH 1965 Service Convention), with notification on July 2, 2024.
The Applicant objected to the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian court in the Plovdiv Regional Court proceedings.
On June 11, 2025, the Plovdiv Regional Court issued Ruling No. 7659, terminating the Bulgarian proceedings regarding parenting and financial issues for lack of jurisdiction.
The Respondent appealed Ruling No. 7659.
On August 7, 2025, the Plovdiv District Court granted the appeal, annulled Ruling No. 7659, and remitted the matter to the Plovdiv Regional Court for further proceedings (next court date: February 26, 2026).
Both parties participated in the jurisdiction challenge before the Plovdiv Regional Court, Plovdiv District Court, and Supreme Court of Cassation.
On October 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of Cassation issued a Final Order upholding Bulgarian jurisdiction over the Respondent's divorce claim, child support claims, and parental rights claims over the Children under Article 7 of the Bulgarian Private International Law Code, on the basis that the Respondent is a Bulgarian citizen.
The Supreme Court of Cassation ruled that Bulgaria's Private International Law Code applies because Canada is not a party to the Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (HCCH 1996 Child Protection Convention).
The Applicant commenced these proceedings by filing an Application (Form 8) in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Milton) on June 27, 2024.
Milena Katsarska personally served the Respondent with the Applicant's Ontario Divorce Application on July 14, 2024, in Plovdiv, Bulgaria.
The Respondent was also personally served with the Applicant's Ontario Divorce Application pursuant to the HCCH 1965 Service Convention in the Regional Court of Plovdiv, Bulgaria, on March 28, 2025.
The Respondent served an Answer (Form 10) on September 22, 2025. In the Answer, the Respondent sought substantive relief and did not challenge the jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court to determine the issues raised in this proceeding. This Answer has not been filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
The Respondent has resided in Bulgaria since April 14, 2024.
Events Leading to the Issuance of the Husband’s Bulgarian Statement of Claim
7In her application, the Wife offers the parties’ date of separation as March 13, 2024. However, she deposes that she retained counsel who wrote to the Husband in May 2022, proposing that the parties agree to a separation agreement. The Husband did not respond, and the Wife did not pursue the issue at the time. Nonetheless, the Husband began to spend increasing periods of time in Bulgaria, spending five months in that country in 2022. About five weeks of that time consisted of a family holiday involving each of the parties and Children.
8The Husband travelled to Bulgaria in April 2023 for three weeks and then returned to the matrimonial home until the end of June 2023. He then travelled to Bulgaria for about a further five months, until December 1, 2023. He remained in the matrimonial home until April 13, 2024, when he permanently moved to Bulgaria, as set out below.
9On March 13, 2024, the Wife’s lawyer wrote to the Husband, indicating that the Wife wished to negotiate a separation agreement. The parties attended one mediation session that month, without counsel. The mediation failed to provide a resolution.
10On April 9, 2024, the Wife’s lawyer wrote to the Husband, stating that he had received no response to his earlier letter. Her lawyer added that if he received no response, the Wife would commence legal proceedings. The Father, who was due to leave for Bulgaria on April 19, 2024, arranged to have his Bulgarian Statement of Claim issued on April 12, 2024 and then flew to Bulgaria the next day. He has been living there ever since.
The Husband’s Bulgarian Statement of Claim
11In his Statement of Claim, the Husband gave his address as “permanently residing in Canada, Ontario province”. He further stated that the Wife had a “permanent address” in Plovdiv, Bulgaria, although her “current address” was in “Canada, Ontario province”. Of course, the Wife’s true permanent address was in Oakville, Ontario.
12Nonetheless, the Husband purported to serve divorce pleadings on the Wife at an address in Bulgaria even though he was aware that she was habitually resident in Ontario.
13In his Bulgarian Statement of Claim, the Husband claimed the following relief:
That, in light of the existence of “insurmountable differences”2 between the parties, the Court should: “rule a Decision by virtue of which to terminate [the marriage] without ruling on the matter of guilt.”
An order “to assign exercising the parental rights in relation to our underage children to [the Husband] entirely”.
14The Husband further pleaded that:
He hoped to “[r]each an agreement with [the Wife] within the meaning of the above concerning our personal and property relations after the termination of our marriage”; and
That he hoped that he and the Wife “would reach complete consent regarding [the] allocation” of “movable objects acquired during our marriage”. He further pleaded that during the marriage, neither party acquired property in Bulgaria.
15The Husband supported his claim for the assignment to himself of sole parenting rights to the Children by pleading that the Wife “has been suffering for many years from a grave mental disorder – schizophrenia, with fits of delusional conditions, which further disturbs our relations and creates problems with the care for raising our two children, which is entirely taken by me”. He further stated that he “will present medical documentation I have at my disposal regarding the health status of the defendant”.
16I cannot ignore the fact that the Husband made his sole parenting claim on the eve of his permanent move to Bulgaria, leaving the children to be solely cared for by the Wife. That state of affairs has continued for the twenty-two months since he left Canada. Those Children continue to reside exclusively with the Wife in the Oakville matrimonial home.
Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation Ruling
17After the Wife was served with the Husband’s Bulgarian Statement of Claim, she contested the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian court. She requested that the proceeding be dismissed because the parties and the Children were habitually resident in Ontario. On June 11, 2025, the Regional Court of Plovdiv, Bulgaria terminated the Husband’s Bulgarian proceedings regarding parenting and financial issues. The Regional Court found that those issues should be ruled upon in Ontario. Nonetheless, the Regional Court did not terminate the Bulgarian divorce proceedings.
18The Husband appealed the Regional Court’s decision to the applicable Bulgarian District Court. His appeal was granted on August 7, 2025. The court granted that relief on the basis that under the Bulgarian Private International Law Code (“PILC”), Bulgarian courts have jurisdiction over divorce, parenting and support when at least one party or the child is a Bulgarian citizen or has Bulgarian habitual residence. The fact that the Wife had issued her claim in Canada did not oust the Bulgarian Court’s jurisdiction as the Bulgarian application was made first. The matter was remitted back to the Regional Court of Plovdiv.
19The Wife appealed this decision to the Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation, Bulgaria’s highest Court. That court ruled that Bulgarian courts have jurisdiction over the parties’ divorce and related issues.
20In her letter of opinion, Bulgarian lawyer and expert on Bulgarian family law, Bilyana Leonidova Lavcheva, explained the rationale for the decision of the BSCC. She pointed out that Article 7 of the PILC provides Bulgarian jurisdiction for matrimonial actions (divorce) if one spouse is Bulgarian or habitually resident in Bulgaria. As set out above, both parties are Bulgarian citizens.
21Further, PILC Article 9(2) extends to parental relations if a parent or child is Bulgarian or habitually resident in Bulgaria. In addition, PILC Article 11 for maintenance supplements Article 4 (which gives the Bulgarian court jurisdiction when one of the parties is a Bulgarian citizen). As Ms. Lavcheva pointed out, for Bulgarian courts: “[c]itizenship prevails as an independent basis; habitual residence is alternative.”
22Thus, the BSCC dismissed the Wife’s appeal without considering which of the two jurisdictions was best placed to determine the issues raised in the proceeding or whether its decision would deprive either party of a juridical advantage.
23In doing so, the BSCC determined the issue of jurisdiction based only on a finding of jurisdiction simpliciter. It did not consider whether Bulgaria was the forum conveniens for the determination of the divorce and related issues.
24Taken together, as explained below, those Bulgarian rulings, if honoured in Ontario, would offer the Husband a substantial juridical advantage over the Wife regarding spousal support and over the Children regarding their parenting.
Issues:
25This motion and the conflict between the two jurisdictions raise the following issues:
Did the Husband attorn to the jurisdiction of this court?
Does Ontario have jurisdiction simpliciter over the issues raised in this proceeding?
Which jurisdiction is the forum conveniens to determine the issues between the parties?
Should the divorce be split from the corollary issues in this proceeding?
Should this court grant an order restraining the Husband, in personam, from continuing with his legal proceeding in Bulgaria?
Issue No. 1: Did the Husband Attorn to the Jurisdiction of this Court?
26The Wife asserts that the Husband has attorned to this jurisdiction. If true, it is not necessary to consider the other issues cited above.
27In Wolfe v. Pickar, 2011 ONCA 347, 332 D.L.R. (4th) 157, Goudge J.A. offered a succinct definition of the term, attornment, and its import. He wrote, at para. 44:
I agree with the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Mid-Ohio Imported Car Co. v. Tri K Investments Ltd. (1995), 129 D.L.R. (4th) 181 that when a party to an action appears in court and goes beyond challenging the jurisdiction of the court based on jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens, the party will be regarded as appearing voluntarily, thus giving the court consent-based jurisdiction.
28In Mehralian v. Dunmore, 2023 ONCA 806, 94 R.F.L. (8th) 255, aff’d 2025 SCC 20, 503 D.L.R. (4th) 686, Monahan J.A., writing for the Court of Appeal of Ontario and citing Wolfe, stated, at para. 30:
Parties to an action are free to select or accept the jurisdiction in which their dispute is to be resolved: Beals v. Saldanha, 2003 SCC 72, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416, at para. 37. As the Divorce Recognition Judge noted, a party that has voluntarily attorned to the jurisdiction of a court has consented to having the issues in dispute determined by that court. Where jurisdiction is established through such consent, as in this case, it is unnecessary to consider whether there are other grounds upon which a court's jurisdiction might be either recognized or challenged, such as whether the parties had a real and substantial connection with the jurisdiction in question: Wolfe v. Pickar, 2011 ONCA 347, 332 D.L.R. (4th) 157, at paras. 43-44.
29In Van Damme v. Gelber, 2013 ONCA 388, 115 O.R. (3d) 470, Doherty J.A., writing for the Ontario Court of Appeal, cited Wolfe, but clarified at para. 23 that:
There is also authority for the proposition that, if a party appears in a court to challenge jurisdiction or seek a stay on the basis of forum non conveniens, any additional steps taken by the party pursuant to an order of the court will also not amount to attornment.3
30Here, in support of her claim that the Husband attorned to this jurisdiction, the Wife points out that the Husband participated in a case conference before Coats J., while represented by counsel. At that time, he signed a consent to an order by Coats J. that:
On a without prejudice basis, he would make all payments on the Home mortgage, property insurance, property taxes, water and sewage utilities, as they become due;
He had leave to file his Answer, Form 13.1 Financial Statement, and Form 35.1 affidavit within 30 days;
He provide to the Applicant certain disclosure, including his sworn Form 13.1 Financial Statement, 2021 – 2024 tax returns and notices of assessment, as well as proof of his assets and debts on the date of marriage and separation and information regarding all work-related benefits;
He provide to the Applicant disclosure of medical records regarding his claim of post-traumatic stress disorder and details of property he owned in Bulgaria during the marriage;
The Wife produce an affidavit setting out any self-employed income she earned within the prior three years and documents showing the values of her assets and debts as of the date of separation, March 13, 2024;
The Wife produce her medical records regarding her inability to work and any property she owned in Bulgaria; and
The Wife had leave to bring this motion. A timetable was set for the exchange of materials and a return to triage court.
31The Husband denies attorning to Ontario’s jurisdiction. He cites his commencement of the Bulgarian proceeding as proof of his non-attornment. He also claims that he “consistently instructed my previous lawyer, Sage Harvey, to oppose the Applicant’s motion in Canada and challenge the jurisdiction of the Ontario Court. Mr. Harvey ignored my instructions and went as far as preparing court documentation in the form of an Answer, 35.1 affidavit, and a financial statement in this proceeding.”
32The Husband went on to claim that “I did not, at any time, instruct Mr. Harvey to attorn to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on my behalf. In addition, I did not understand what ‘attorning to the jurisdiction’ meant, as this substantive step was never explained to me by Mr. Harvey. I learned about attorning to the jurisdiction when I engaged my present counsel.”
33I am not convinced by the Husband’s assertions against his former lawyer for the following reasons:
As set out above, he fully participated in a case conference before Coats J. on August 21, 2025 and entered into a consent for relief that was both substantive and procedural. The substantive terms included the payment of various expenses regarding the Home. The procedural terms included the right to file certain pleadings within 30 days and the obligations to provide a Form 35.1 parenting affidavit and detailed disclosure. That disclosure is relevant to both parenting and financial issues.
While he never filed his Answer, 35.1 affidavit, or Financial Statement in this proceeding, he did sign and swear them, as the case may be, on September 22, 2025. Those documents were then served on the Wife’s counsel.
He did not challenge this court’s jurisdiction in his Answer. Rather, he sought substantive relief, including regarding parenting, support and equalization.
His sworn Form 13.1 Financial Statement contained copies of his notices of assessment and an updated pay statement, dated June 27, July 25, and August 8, 2025. Only the Husband could have provided those documents to his lawyer.
The Husband’s present counsel admits that the Husband never informed his previous counsel of his allegations of ineffective counsel against him. Thus, the Husband has failed to allow his previous counsel the opportunity to respond to the allegations. Further, the Husband offers no evidence but his bald assertion that his previous counsel acted contrary to his instructions.
34On the other hand, the Husband never abandoned his Bulgarian proceedings. He fought the issue of Bulgarian jurisdiction all the way to the BSCC. Further, even at the case conference before Coats J., the issue of this court’s jurisdiction was front and centre. The parties agreed to a timetable for the exchange of materials for this jurisdictional motion. Logically, the parties and the court would not enter into that process if, at the same time, the Husband was attorning to this jurisdiction.
35Furthermore, as the Husband’s counsel pointed out, he never filed his Answer, Form 13.1 Financial Statement or Form 35.1 affidavit, even though he served them. In addition, the substantive terms of the Coats J. order simply preserved the status quo and vaguely did so “without prejudice”. The Husband’s agreement to procedural orders when the issue of jurisdiction was already clearly on the table cannot be seen as attornment.
36While it is a close call, I cannot find that the Husband attorned to this jurisdiction.
Issue No 2: Does Ontario have jurisdiction simpliciter over the Issues Raised in this Proceeding?
37In light of its finding on attornment, the court in this case is required to make determinations on two jurisdictional issues: jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens. The difference between the two concepts was described by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Muscutt v. Courcelles (2002), 213 D.L.R. (4th) 577(Ont. C.A.), at para. 43, citing Lemmex v. Bernard (2000), 51 O.R. (3d) 164 at 172 (Div. Ct.), at p.172, as follows:
[T]he question of whether Ontario has jurisdiction to hear these actions is a different question from whether this court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction because another forum is the more convenient forum. Using other terminology, the concept of jurisdiction simpliciter is different from that of forum non conveniens. The second question of whether Ontario should decline to exercise jurisdiction because another forum is the more convenient forum only needs to be considered once an Ontario court has determined that it has jurisdiction to hear the action. [Emphasis in original.]
38The Husband rightly concedes that Ontario has jurisdiction simpliciter over the issues raised in this proceeding. That jurisdiction arises from ss. 2(1), 3(1) and 4(1) of the DA.
39The s. 2(1) definition of a “divorce proceedings is: “a proceeding in a court in which either or both spouses seek a divorce alone or together with a child support order, a spousal support order or a parenting order”.
40Under s. 3(1), “[a] court in a province has jurisdiction to hear and determine a divorce proceeding if either spouse has been habitually resident in the province for at least one year immediately preceding the commencement of the proceeding.” The term, “habitually resident” is not defined in the DA. In March 2021, it replaced the term “ordinarily resident” found in s. 3(1).
41As Ramsay J. pointed out in Singh v. Sandhu, 2024 ONSC 1265, at para. 37, the meaning of the two terms is the same. It is “the place where one is ‘in the settled routine of his life he regularly, normally or customarily lives’, as opposed to the place where one ‘unusually, casually or intermittently visits or stays’"4.
42Regarding corollary relief, s. 4(1) of the DA states:
4 (1) A court in a province has jurisdiction to hear and determine a corollary relief proceeding if
(a) either former spouse is habitually resident in the province at the commencement of the proceeding; or
(b) both former spouses accept the jurisdiction of the court.
43Here, there is no question that the Wife was habitually resident in Ontario for at least one year prior to the commencement of this proceeding, as well as at the time of its commencement.
44Further, regarding property issues, which in Ontario are governed by the FLA, s. 15 of that statute deals with conflicts of laws. It states that:
15 The property rights of spouses arising out of the marital relationship are governed by the internal law of the place where both spouses had their last common habitual residence or, if there is no place where the spouses had a common habitual residence, by the law of Ontario.
45Again, there is no dispute that the parties’ last common habitual residence was in Oakville, Ontario.
46In Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 572, at para. 82, LeBel J. wrote for the Supreme Court that the common law real and substantial connection test which applies in conflict of law situations, must "be established primarily on the basis of objective factors that connect the legal situation or the subject matter of the litigation with the forum." At para. 90, the court set out a list of four presumptive connecting factors that, prima facie, entitle a court to assume jurisdiction over a dispute. They are:
the defendant is domiciled or resident in the province;
the defendant carries on business in the province;
the tort was committed in the province; and
a contract connected with the dispute was made in the province.
47LeBel J. was clear that that list is not a closed one. Other presumptive connective factors could apply, which entitle a court to assume jurisdiction: para. 91.
48In Wang v. Lin, 2013 ONCA 33, 29 R.F.L. (7th) 1, the Court of Appeal for Ontario pointed out that the Van Breda factors apply to tort cases. The presumptive connecting factors that would apply in family law cases are necessarily different from the ones that apply in tort cases: para. 46. In family law cases, the court should look to the “real home” or ordinary residence of a party or the children prior to the separation as a presumptive factor in the real and substantial connection test: para. 47.
49Here, there can be no question that the real home for the Wife and the Children before the commencement of the Ontario and Bulgarian proceedings was Oakville, Ontario. In fact, that was also the case for the Husband at the time he commenced the Bulgarian proceedings.
50Accordingly, for the reasons set out above and as the Husband conceded, I find that the real and substantial connection test demonstrates that Ontario has jurisdiction simpliciter over the issues raised in this proceeding.
Issue No. 3: Which Jurisdiction is the forum conveniens to Determine the Issues Between the Parties?
51The issue of forum conveniens looks to the jurisdiction which is most appropriate to hear the issues raised in this case. While the BSCC ruled that Bulgarian courts have jurisdiction to hear the case commenced by the Husband’s Statement of Claim, it did so solely on the basis of jurisdiction simpliciter. It did not consider whether Bulgaria, as opposed to Ontario, was the more appropriate jurisdiction to hear this case.
52As the Ontario Court of Appeal pointed out in Muscutt, the court considers the issue of forum conveniens only after determining that it has jurisdiction simpliciter. It does so only because it should not enter into matters in which it has little interest: para. 42, citing Tolofson v. Jensen; Lucas (Litigation Guardian of) v. Gagnon, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022, at p. 1049.
53At paras. 40-41 of Muscutt, Sharpe J.A. described the rationale for the forum non conveniens doctrine and set out a number of applicable factors. He wrote:
Very often there is more than one forum capable of assuming jurisdiction and it is necessary to determine where the action should be litigated. As Sopinka J. explained in Amchem, supra, at p. 912"[f]requently there is no single forum that is clearly the most convenient or appropriate for the trial of the action but rather several which are equally suitable alternatives". Where more than one forum is capable of assuming jurisdiction, the most appropriate forum is determined through the forum non conveniens doctrine, which allows a court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction on the ground that there is another forum more appropriate to entertain the action.
Courts have developed a list of several factors that may be considered in determining the most appropriate forum for the action, including the following:
the location of the majority of the parties
the location of key witnesses and evidence
contractual provisions that specify applicable law or accord jurisdiction
the avoidance of a multiplicity of proceedings
the applicable law and its weight in comparison to the factual questions to be decided
geographical factors suggesting the natural forum
whether declining jurisdiction would deprive the plaintiff of a legitimate juridical advantage available in the domestic court.
54The burden of proof regarding the forum non conveniens doctrine falls on the party seeking a stay of a proceeding on the basis of forum non conveniens, who must prove that the other jurisdiction is clearly more appropriate: Van Breda, at para. 108.
55At para. 109 of Van Breda, LeBel J. explained the importance of a court looking to the jurisdiction that is in a better position to determine the issues at stake. He wrote:
The use of the words "clearly" and "exceptionally" should be interpreted as an acknowledgment that the normal state of affairs is that jurisdiction should be exercised once it is properly assumed. The burden is on a party who seeks to depart from this normal state of affairs to show that, in light of the characteristics of the alternative forum, it would be fairer and more efficient to do so and that the plaintiff should be denied the benefits of his or her decision to select a forum that is appropriate under the conflicts rules. The court should not exercise its discretion in favour of a stay solely because it finds, once all relevant concerns and factors are weighed, that comparable forums exist in other provinces or states. It is not a matter of flipping a coin. A court hearing an application for a stay of proceedings must find that a forum exists that is in a better position to dispose fairly and efficiently of the litigation. But the court must be mindful that jurisdiction may sometimes be established on a rather low threshold under the conflicts rules. Forum non conveniens may play an important role in identifying a forum that is clearly more appropriate for disposing of the litigation and thus ensuring fairness to the parties and a more efficient process for resolving their dispute. [Emphasis added.]
56In Karkulowski v. Karkulowski, 2014 ONSC 1222, at para. 52, Mitrow J. applied that principle to the determination of the proper jurisdiction for a divorce and corollary relief proceeding.
57All of that being said, even when considering the issue of the loss of a legitimate juridical advantage, the court must also apply some caution to that factor because of the principle of comity.
58In Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077, [1990] S.C.J. No. 135, at para. 31, LaForest adopted the following definition of the term, comity, offered by the United States Supreme Court in Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895), at pp. 163-64:
"Comity" in the legal sense, is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good will, upon the other. But it is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws ...5
59LaForest added that:
In a word, the rules of private international law are grounded in the need in modern times to facilitate the flow of wealth, skills and people across state lines in a fair and orderly manner. Von Mehren and Trautman have [page1097] observed in "Recognition of Foreign Adjudications: A Survey and A Suggested Approach" (1968), 81 Harv. L. Rev. 1601, at p. 1603: "The ultimate justification for according some degree of recognition is that if in our highly complex and interrelated world each community exhausted every possibility of insisting on its parochial interests, injustice would result and the normal patterns of life would be disrupted."
60In Bouzari v. Bahremani, 2015 ONCA 275, 126 O.R. (3d) 223, at para. 46, the Court of Appeal for Ontario spoke of the need for caution when considering the loss of juridical advantage because of “the principle of comity and 'an attitude of respect for the courts and legal systems of other countries, many of which have the same basic values as us'": Prince v. ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. (2014), 2014 ONCA 285, 120 O.R. (3d) 140, [2014] O.J. No. 1792 (C.A.), at para. 64, citing Van Breda, at para. 112.”
61It must be noted that the comment at para. 112 of Van Breda cited immediately above referred to comity between Canadian provinces. Further, comity was not the reason that the Court of Appeal for Ontario declined jurisdiction in Bouzari.
62In Doersam v. Doersam, 2022 ONSC 4095, 77 R.F.L. (8th) 415, at para. 22, Kristjanson J. pointed to the importance of comity and respect for other jurisdictions, but aptly added that: “[w]e cannot expect a foreign jurisdiction to be identical, but the law does consider loss of juridical advantage.”
Analysis of the Forum Conveniens Issue
63Regarding the onus, as set out above, once jurisdiction simpliciter is established, the onus rests on the party asserting that another jurisdiction is more appropriate. Here, the issue is a bit more confusing because it is the Wife bringing this motion, asserting that Ontario is the most appropriate jurisdiction. However, from the commencement of this proceeding, as set out above, the Husband contended that Bulgaria is the appropriate jurisdiction, having refused, as set out above, to attorn to this jurisdiction. This, I find that the onus rests on him to show that Bulgaria is the most appropriate jurisdiction to determine the issues in this proceeding.
64I note that even if I am wrong, I do find that Ontario is clearly the more appropriate venue to determine the issues in this proceeding. If she had to do so, the Wife would meet the onus set out above.
65In arguing for this jurisdiction, the Wife raises the following points:
a. She has been residing in Canada since 2002 and in Ontario since 2015.
b. The same was true for the Husband, until April 2024.
c. Until April 2024, both parties resided in the Home. The Wife and Children continue to do so.
d. Ontario is the last known location where the parties had a common habitual residence.
e. Both Children have lived in Canada since birth. They have never resided in Bulgaria. While they have vacationed there and met relatives, they have little connection to the country. They cannot really speak the Bulgarian language.
f. Both parents are employed in Ontario, even though the Husband does so remotely from Bulgaria.
g. The Home is located in Ontario.
h. While the Respondent does own two properties in Bulgaria, he claimed in his Form 13.1 Financial Statement that his only real property is the matrimonial home.
i. The vast majority of relevant evidence for this case is in Ontario. Any relevant witnesses other than the Husband would be here.
j. The court can enforce its orders here.
k. The Wife would suffer a significant juridical disadvantage regarding spousal support if the Bulgarian courts were to have jurisdiction over this divorce proceeding. I will have more to say about that below.
66The Husband offers the following factors in favour of the Bulgarian court system:
The court should respect the principle of comity, especially as the Wife has unsuccessfully challenged the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian courts all the way to the BSCC.
The convenience and expense of the parties equally favour each jurisdiction. The Husband has named a number of family members who would be witnesses as to his parenting, while the Wife has not named any witnesses. The Husband notes in particular that the Wife has not named any professional witnesses she plans to call at trial. He further claims that there are no witnesses regarding the Children’s welfare and best interests cited in the Wife’s materials.
The Husband asserts that Bulgarian law is equipped to deal with the issues raised in this proceeding. He relies on the evidence of his expert in Bulgarian law, Ms. Lavcheva. Her affidavit spoke to the ability of the Bulgarian courts to deal with the issues of divorce, parental rights, support and property. In particular:
i. Divorce is available on a no-fault basis.
ii. Parental rights under the Bulgarian Family Code are presumptively joint unless that joint exercise harms the child or is contrary to their best interests. In that regard, the court will consider the child's wishes (if mature), emotional bonds, stability of residence, parental fitness, and the ability to meet needs.
iii. Visitation is regulated separately, prioritizing the child’s welfare. As Ms. Lavcheva deposes: “[t]here is no automatic preference for [a] resident parent. Bulgarian courts routinely award joint rights despite international relocation, modifiable on changed circumstances.”
iv. However, while spousal support is available, as set out below, it is far more limited than the amount available in Ontario.
v. Ms. Lavcheva’s affidavit states that under the Bulgarian Family Code Article 143, child maintenance is “separate, mandatory, covering actual needs (education, health), shared proportionally (typically 25-30% per child of the net income guideline).”
The Wife has property in Bulgaria, which she did not initially cite in her Form 13.1 Financial Statement. Along with her siblings, she inherited a number of shared interests in a number of Bulgarian properties from her later father. While they are likely excluded under the Ontario equalization process, there is no evidence before the court as to how the Bulgarian courts would deal with that property.
The Husband asserts that Bulgarian courts would not honour an Ontario order regarding property or support. His expert report does not speak to that issue.
67In considering each of the factors raised by the parties, I find, as set out above, that the evidence and principles of fairness strongly support a finding that Ontario is the appropriate venue for the determination of the issues raised in this case. I say this because:
While I respect the BSCC decision, that court did not consider the issue of forum conveniens. This is the first determination of that issue.
The timing of the commencement of the Husband’s divorce proceedings is suspicious. He commenced them just after the Wife’s lawyer threatened to commence proceedings in Ontario. He did so with such haste that he commenced them in Bulgaria before he even moved there. He then moved up his flight to Bulgaria by five days.
In doing so, the Husband had to be aware of the juridical advantages that would accrue from a Bulgarian divorce, particularly regarding spousal support. If that were not case, why else would he have been in such a rush to commence proceedings there?
Each of the Wife’s factors, cited above, are applicable and highly relevant:
The parties spent about 20 of the 21 years of their marriage in Ontario.
They were both resident in Ontario before they finally separated with the Husband’s move to Bulgaria on April 14, 2024.
The Husband commenced his Bulgarian proceedings before they finally separated.
The Wife and Children continue to live in Ontario.
The Children have lived all of their lives in Ontario.
They Children have little connection to Bulgaria other than holidays and infrequently visits with relatives.
The Children have little commend of the Bulgarian language.
Contrary to the Husband’s assertions, the majority of the evidence which would be available regarding the Children is available in Ontario, rather than Bulgaria. I say this because:
a. The Children’s schools are in Ontario. Their teachers can speak to their progress and the care that the Wife has offered as their sole caregiver since separation. The Children’s school records are in Ontario.
b. The Children’s health providers are in Ontario and can speak to the health of the Children and the Wife’s involvement in ensuring their health. The Children’s health records are in Ontario.
c. The Children’s friends and activities are in Ontario.
d. Anyone who would be able to speak to the Wife’s care of the Children is in Ontario.
e. Furthermore, if this matter were to proceed in Ontario, it is most likely that the court would request the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to assist in order to conduct a clinical investigation under s. 112 of the CJA, or at least a Voice of the Child Report. In the alternative, the court could order an independent professional assessment of the needs of the Children and ability of the parties to meet them under s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12. Any of those options would allow the court to obtain independent evidence regarding the best interests of the Children and allow the Children to have a voice in the determination of their future parenting arrangements.
f. That input would be vital in light of the fact that it appears the Husband pleaded in the Bulgarian proceeding that he wishes to “exercise parental rights entirely”.6 While the Husband is in Bulgaria, along with some family members, and he speaks to the Children regularly, he has not seen them in person in close to two years and his relatives have not seen them in person in a longer period of time. The best evidence regarding the Children’s best interests in that regard is clearly in Ontario.
g. The Father has provided no evidence that the Bulgarian courts have the equivalent resources available to assist the court in determining the Children’s views and preferences, not to mention their best interests. That fact represents a juridical disadvantage for the Children.
The Husband’s assertions regarding the Wife’s mental health represent a key element in support of his parenting claims. In his Bulgarian Statement of Claim, he pleaded to have some of her medical/psychiatric records in his possession. Ignoring the issue of how he obtained the Wife’s confidential medical/psychiatric records, whatever records he possesses are likely incomplete and out of date. It is likely that the most complete evidence regarding the Wife’s mental health is in Ontario, where any of her treating professionals practice and keep their records.
As set out above, the Home is located in Oakville, Ontario. The Bulgarian court would likely be unable to force the sale of the Home without the Wife’s consent, particularly in light of the Wife’s right to possession of the Home under s. 19 of the FLA and the provisions of s. 21, which restrict its alienation. Furthermore, under s. 24 of the FLA, the Wife has the right to seek exclusive possession of the Home and its contents (she has requested it in her application), She would lose a juridical advantage if the Bulgarian court is seen as the more appropriate forum to deal with the issues in this proceeding.
Finally, the Wife would lose a significant juridical advantage regarding spousal support if that issue is determined under Bulgarian law. As Ms. Lavcheva reported in her affidavit:
a. Under Chapter Four, Article 139 of the Bulgarian Family Code, spousal maintenance is strictly limited. It is available only to a spouse incapable of work due to childcare, health, or age, and lacking sufficient means.
b. Article 145 of that Code “further restricts post-divorce alimony to the faultless spouse, terminable on remarriage, cohabitation, or improved circumstances, with a maximum duration of three years (extendable only in exceptional hardship without unduly burdening the provider).”
c. Article 142 of that Code requires the quantum of spousal support to be need-based, proportional to means.
d. “There is no indefinite support and courts emphasize self-sufficiency.”
e. From this, it is clear that the Wife’s entitlement to spousal support and the quantum of any entitlement are quite questionable. But even if she were entitled to some spousal support in Bulgaria, it would likely be of a short duration.
f. However, under Ontario law and under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, after a 21-year marriage, the Wife would be entitled to indefinite term support7. In addition, she would likely be entitled to such support on both a compensatory and non-compensatory basis,8 as a result of her role as primary caregiver of the Children.
g. The issue of spousal support is vitally important to the Wife as she is presently only working part-time, earning $1,000 per month from employment and self-employment income (plus Child Tax Benefits of $706 per month and $920 per month in other income). Altogether, those figures total $31,512 per annum, less than a full-time minimum wage. On the other hand, the Husband earns an income of $159,078 per annum, per his September 22, 2025 Form 13.1 Financial Statement.
h. I add that a further factor which creates an enormous juridical disadvantage to the Wife if this court declines jurisdiction is the fact that no spousal support will be available to her under either the DA or the FLA if the Husband is able to obtain a Bulgarian divorce. That is because support is available under the DA only as a corollary to a divorce under that statute. Under the FLA, spousal support is only available to spouses (in the present tense), not former spouses. These principles are set out in Rothgiesser v. Rothgiesser (2000), 183 D.L.R. (4th) 310 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 26-27; Okmyansky v. Okmyansky, 2007 ONCA 427, 38 R.F.L. (6th) 291, at paras. 41-42; and Cheng v. Liu, 2017 ONCA 104, 94 R.F.L. (7th) 23, at paras. 27-30. See also: Mehralian v. Dunmore, 2025 ONSC 649, 12 R.F.L. (9th) 278, at paras. 44-45 and 51.
i. I add that while it is true that Bulgarian law would provide the Wife with child support in an amount that cannot now be determined (but may even exceed what would be available under the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175), child support is of a limited duration while the Wife’s rights to spousal support would be of indefinite duration under Ontario law. Further, the Husband did not provide evidence which would allow this court to compare child support entitlements, including special and extraordinary expenses under the two regimes.
68All that being said, I am required, as set out above, to consider the principle of comity as part of my analysis of forum conveneins. Bulgarian family law has a number of similarities to Canadian family law as applied in Ontario. But as I set out above, there are a number of significant differences, particularly regarding spousal support, which, for reasons set out above, I can only assume motivated the Husband’s decision to commence his Bulgarian proceedings.
69Furthermore from the point of view of the Children, there are many disadvantages to having a jurisdiction to which they have only a minimal connection determine their parenting arrangements.
70Finally, I need point out, as stated above, that the BSCC’s analysis did not look to the issue of forum conveniens. Its decision was based only on jurisdiction simplicitor. Two jurisdictions may properly claim jurisdiction simplicitor. But only one can properly claim forum conveniens. The BSCC did not do so. Thus, a decision that Ontario is the forum conveniens for this proceeding does not directly contradict the decision of the BSCC and the principle of comity. That is an important factor in determining whether the issue of comity trumps the other factors cited above.
Conclusion regarding Forum Conveniens
71In sum, I find that there are so many advantages to having the issues raised in this proceeding determined in Ontario and so many disadvantages to having them determined in Bulgaria that I find that Ontario is clearly the forum conveniens for all of those issues.
Issue No 4: Should the Divorce be Split from the Corollary Issues in this Proceeding?
72The jurisdiction for the court to split the divorce from the corollary relief is found in r. 12(6) of the FLR, which reads as follows:
Splitting divorce from other issues
(6) The court may, on motion, make an order splitting a divorce from the other issues in a case if,
(a) neither spouse will be disadvantaged by the order; and
(b) reasonable arrangements have been made for the support of any
children of the marriage.
73While he does not accept the jurisdiction of the court to determine the issues in this proceeding, the Husband has not specifically opposed or offered submissions regard the splitting of the divorce from the corollary relief.
74In light of my finding regarding forum conveniens, I see no disadvantage to the Husband in splitting the divorce from the corollary relief. I do see a potential disadvantage to the Wife if I fail to do so and if the Husband, contrary to the order I make below, chooses to proceed with a Bulgarian divorce.
75At present, as a result of the order of Coats J. of August 21, 2025, the Husband is required to be responsible for the key expenses related to the Home. Thus, I find that reasonable arrangements have been made and are presently in place for the support of the Children. That does not mean that the terms of the Coats J. order are ideal child support arrangements or represent the order which may arise following a trial of the issues. However, for the purpose of the rule, the arrangements are sufficiently reasonable to allow the splitting of the divorce from the corollary relief claims. I so order.
Issue No 5: Should this Court Grant an Order Restraining the Husband, in personam, from Continuing with his Legal Proceeding in Bulgaria?
76In Amchem Products Inc. v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897, at pp. 912-13, Sopinka J. explained the purpose of an anti-suit injunction as a form of remedy to control the choice of forum by parties. The more conventional remedy is a stay of proceeding. The more aggressive remedy is the anti-suit injunction. There:
[T]he defendants in a foreign jurisdiction who allege that the plaintiff in that jurisdiction has selected an inappropriate forum seek an injunction from the courts of the alleged appropriate forum, in which no proceeding is pending, to restrain continuation of the foreign proceedings. While the restraining order operates in personam on the plaintiff in the foreign suit and not on the foreign court itself, it has the latter effect and therefore raises serious issues of comity.
77At pp. 914-15 of Amchem, Sopinka J. sets out the reason such injunctions may be necessary, despite the desire for comity with foreign courts and their laws. He writes:
Courts of other jurisdictions do occasionally accept jurisdiction over cases that do not satisfy the basic requirements of the forum non conveniens test. Comity is not universally respected. In some cases a serious injustice will be occasioned as a result of the failure of a foreign court to decline jurisdiction. It is only in such circumstances that a court should entertain an application for an anti-suit injunction. This then indicates the general tenor of the principles that underlie the granting of this form of relief.
78At p. 920, Sopinka J. added:
a party whose case has a real and substantial connection with a forum has a legitimate claim to the advantages that that forum provides. The legitimacy of this claim is based on a reasonable expectation that in the event of litigation arising out of the transaction in question, those advantages will be available.
79In Hudon v. Geos Language Corp. (1997), 34 O.R. (3d) 14, at p. 23, the Divisional Court upheld an order below, granting an anti-suit injunction. In doing so, the court looked to whether preventing the defendant from proceeding in its foreign suit “will deprive it unjustly of any legitimate juridical advantage” (emphasis added). It did not. But there was a strong personal advantage to the Ontario plaintiff. Accordingly, the injunction was allowed to stand.
80In Pan v. Zhao, 2024 ONSC 1328, Vella J. described the result and test for an anti-suit injunction as follows at paras. 28-29:
An anti-suit injunction restrains a party from proceeding with his foreign action. In ordering this type of injunction, the court is exercising its in personam jurisdiction over the party. Shaw v. Shaw, 2007 CarswellOnt 4417 (S.C.), at para. 24. It does not restrain the foreign court from proceeding: Shaw, at para. 24. This type of remedy is available to restrain family law litigants from continuing competing family law proceedings commenced in foreign jurisdictions.
The test that must be met by the moving party seeking an anti-suit injunction has been described as follows:
a. It is preferable (not mandatory) that a foreign proceeding is pending;
b. It is preferable (not mandatory) that the applicant has not obtained a stay from the foreign court already;
c. The domestic court is the "potentially appropriate forum";
d. The domestic forum has the closest connection to the action and the parties, and no other forum is clearly more appropriate; and
e. There is no injustice to the parties if the forum proceeding does or does not go forward, and an injunction will not deprive the forum plaintiff of advantages in the foreign jurisdiction, which would be an unjust deprivation: Shaw, at para. 21; Borschel v. Borschel, 2020 ONSC 4395, 43 R.F.L. (8th) 366, at para. 93; Bell'O International LLC v. Flooring & Lumber Co., 2001 CarswellOnt 1701 (S.C.), at para. 9, citing Amchem Products Incorporated v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 897, at p. 519.
81As Vella J. noted at para. 30:
[T]he elements for an anti-suit injunction are similar to the jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens analysis. If anything, the anti-suit injunction may have a lower threshold than the real and substantial connection test; i.e., the requirement to show the domestic court is the "potentially" appropriate forum and no other forum is "clearly more appropriate".
82The Applicant claims that it would be just, in light of my findings above, to order the Respondent to discontinue his Bulgarian divorce proceeding. He can raise any relevant issue in this proceeding, including parenting and support. He would be far less disadvantaged in this proceeding than she would be if proceedings continued in Bulgaria.
83The Husband opposes an in personam against himself. He cites the caution for such relief expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Anchem.
84The Husband also argues, citing the excerpts from Pan v. Zhao cited above, that in a family law context, courts should be restrictive in applying this relief. It should only do so where the foreign court deprives a party of substantive rights contrary to the principles of natural justice or where it is manifestly oppressive. Frankly, I do not find anything in Vella J.’s decision in which she offers that view. In fact, she granted such an injunction against divorce proceedings commenced in the People's Republic of China. In doing so, she followed the test set out above.
85Here, considering the five-part test set out in Pan v. Zhao:
a. A foreign proceeding is pending in Bulgaria;
b. The Wife has been unable to obtain a stay from the Bulgarian courts;
c. I have found that Ontario is the appropriate forum to hear the issues raised in this proceeding;
d. Ontario has the closest connection to the action and the parties, and no other forum is clearly more appropriate; and
e. It would not be unjust to the Husband to proceed in Ontario. Any advantages which the Husband may lose in having this proceeding heard in Ontario are not unjust in light of the facts that:
i. The lion’s share of the time that the parties were married, they lived under Canadian law;
ii. It would be highly unjust to the Wife to be deprived of the spousal support rights she acquired in this jurisdiction simply because the Husband chose to commence a proceeding in a jurisdiction with little connection to their matrimonial issues, which would limit her support rights;
iii. As in Hudon, it would also be unjust to require the Wife, a single parent of two children living on a limited income, from litigating these issues in Bulgaria while residing with the Children in Ontario; and
iv. The evidence does not allow the court to find that the Children would have the same opportunity to have independent evidence regarding their best interests and views and preferences presented to the court in Bulgaria that they have in Ontario.
86Accordingly, I grant the anti-suit injunction requested by the Wife.
Conclusion:
87For the reasons set out above, I order as follows:
The divorce shall be split from the corollary issues in this proceeding, pursuant to r. 12(6) of the Family Law Rules;
I declare that this court has jurisdiction simpliciter over the parties’ claims with respect to the issues of divorce; the corollary issues of decision-making authority and parenting regarding the Children; child support; spousal support; equalization, division and/or disposition of family property (the “Claims”);
I declare that Ontario is the forum conveniens for the Claims, pursuant to s. 97 of the Courts of Justice Act;
I grant an injunction restraining the Respondent in personam from continuing with his legal proceeding in Plovdiv, Bulgaria involving the Applicant and the Respondent with respect to the Claims, pursuant to s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act;
I order that the Respondent in personam, within seven days, provide written confirmation from the court in Bulgaria that he has discontinued his legal proceeding in Bulgaria or that his legal proceeding in Bulgaria has been dismissed, including any outstanding appeals by the Respondent.
The Respondent may file his Answer, Form 35.1 parenting affidavit and Form 13.1 sworn Financial Statement within seven days;
The Wife is at liberty to move for an uncontested divorce by bringing a motion for that relief to my attention.
88The parties should attempt to resolve the issue of costs on their own. If they are unable to do so, the Wife may submit her costs submissions of up to three pages, double spaced, one-inch margins, plus a bill of costs/costs outline and offers to settle. She shall do so within 14 days of release of this endorsement. She need not include the authorities upon which she relies so long as they are found in the commonly referenced reporting services (i.e., LexisNexis Quicklaw, or WestlawNext) and the relevant paragraph references are included.
89The Husband may respond in kind within a further 14 days. No reply submission will be accepted unless I request it. If I have not received any submissions within the time frames set out above, I will assume that the parties have resolved the issue and will make no costs order.
Kurz J.
Date: February 20, 2026
Footnotes
- The Mother’s notice of motion originally requested that the confirmation be provided within thirty days. But because the Bulgarian proceedings were scheduled to commence in less than a week and the Father’s Bulgarian lawyer claimed that they could not be adjourned, the Mother’s lawyer reduced the time for confirmation to seven days.
- All references to Bulgarian pleadings are from the translations from the original Bulgarian pleadings provided by the Husband.
- Citing: Gourmet Resources International Inc. (Trustee of) v. Paramount Capital Corp. (1991), 5 C.P.C. (3d) 140 (Ont. Gen. Div.); M.J. Jones Inc. v. Kingsway General Insurance Co. (2004), 72 O.R. (3d) 68 (C.A.), at paras. 18-31 (per Lang J.A., in chambers).
- Citing: Simpson-Campbell v. Stark-Campbell, 2022 ONSC 5481, at paras. 20-23, which in turn cited Thomson v. Minister of National Revenue, [1946] S.C.R. 209, at pp. 231-232, per Estey J.; MacPherson v. MacPherson (1976), 28 R.F.L. 106, at p. 112 (Ont. C.A.).
- See also Kaynes v. BP plc 2014 ONCA 580, at para. 38.
- During the argument of this motion, the Husband’s counsel was less definitive about his client’s Bulgarian request for primary decision-making and care of the children than he had been in his statement of claim. Counsel indicated that the Husband may only wish extended visits with one or both of the Children.
- See: Carol Rogerson and Rollie Thompson, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: The Revised User’s Guide (Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 2016), at p. 29, ch. 7(d) (“RUG”).
- RUG, at pp. 5-6, ch. 3(a), citing Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (Ottawa: Department of Justice, 2008), at ch. 4.