Abitbol v. Abitbol, 2026 ONSC 1636
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Vivane Esther Abitbol, Guardian of Joseph Abitbol, Applicant
-and-
Joseph Abitbol, Respondent
BEFORE: Justice A. Doyle
COUNSEL: Ms. Vinograd and Ms. Gillespie for the Applicant
No one appearing for the Respondent
HEARD: In writing and attendance on March 13, 2026 by teleconference
REASONS FOR DECISION
1For oral reasons given, the court granted the request by the applicant, Viviane Esther Abitbol for the following:
An order for an appointment of guardian made by Judge Anat Alfassi of Israel dated April 10, 2024 be re-sealed in this court; (“Israeli Order”)
That the Israeli Order be recognized as a valid Foreign Judgment which declares the Respondent, Joseph Abitbol, to be incapable of managing property and appoints the applicant as guardian for property for the respondent;
An order that for any financial institution or government agency receiving a copy of this Order, it will be good and sufficient authority to act upon the instructions of the Applicant; and
That the Israeli Order is a good and valid Order of this Court.
2The respondent resides in Israel and is currently 82 years of age and is a person under disability.
3The applicant, who is the daughter of the respondent, was appointed as the respondent’s guardian for personal care and property on an interim basis in 2023. These orders became final orders on April 10, 2024.
4The respondent holds personal property in Ontario including bank accounts and investments.
5The applicant cannot access these funds to assist in the payment of the respondent’s continued care in Israel.
6The application requests a re-sealing of the Israeli order or in the alternative, an Order recognizing the Israeli Order as a valid foreign order in accordance with common law principles.
Discussion
7Section 86 of the Substitute Decisions Act 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30 (SDA) provides:
86 (1) In this section,
“foreign order” means an order made by a court outside Ontario that appoints, for a person who is sixteen years of age or older, a person having duties comparable to those of a guardian of property or guardian of the person. 1992, c. 30, s. 86 (1).
(2) Any person may apply to the court for an order resealing a foreign order that was made in a province or territory of Canada or in a prescribed jurisdiction. 1992, c. 30, s. 86 (2).
(3) An order resealing a foreign order shall not be made unless the applicant files with the court,
(a) a copy of the foreign order bearing the seal of the court that made it or a copy of the foreign order certified by the registrar, clerk or other officer of the court that made it; and
(b) a certificate signed by the registrar, clerk or other officer of the court that made the foreign order stating that the order is unrevoked and of full effect. 1992, c. 30, s. 86 (3).
(4) A foreign order that has been resealed,
(a) has the same effect in Ontario as if it were an order under this Act appointing a guardian of property or guardian of the person, as the case may be;
(b) is subject in Ontario to any condition imposed by the court that the court may impose under this Act on an order appointing a guardian of property or guardian of the person, as the case may be; and
(c) is subject in Ontario to the provisions of this Act respecting guardians of property or guardians of the person, as the case may be. 1992, c. 30, s. 86 (4).
8“Prescribed jurisdiction” is not defined in the SDA.
9The applicant submits that since the SDA is silent on how an Ontario Court should recognize a guardianship order issued outside Canada, then the common law rules apply to resealing guardianship orders.
10This principle was articulated in Cariello v. Perrella 2018 ONSC 7605, at 48:
[48] …. It seems to me that unless and until Ontario creates a list of “prescribed jurisdictions” there is simply no legislative basis on which I can apply s. 86. This is not a case where the statute inadvertently fails to deal with an issue. Here, the province has simply failed to take the regulatory steps necessary to create a list of prescribed jurisdictions to which s.86 would apply. I have no idea of the province’s intentions in that regard. I fail to see how I can simply assume Ontario would designate Italy as a prescribed jurisdiction when it finally creates a list of prescribed jurisdictions under the SDA. I have no basis to conclude that Ontario has any intention of having s.86 apply to any jurisdiction other than another Canadian province or territory. Section 86 cannot apply.[9]
11Justice Myers in Fisher v. Danilunas 2025 ONSC 4359 stated at para. 97,
[97] Provided that the foreign court order is final, was made with a real and substantial connection to the parties and issues, was not obtained by fraud or a breach of natural justice, and would not violate Canadian public policy, it should be enforced.
12In that case, Justice Myers held a hearing and the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (OPGT) was involved.
13In that hearing the applicants requested the recognition of an order made by an English court appointing joint and several deputies for the property and affairs of an individual.
14At the first hearing, Justice Myers stated this at 2025 ONSC 2061
[26] I do not have any concern applying the principle of comity for the courts of England. I do not know the relevant English law. But I am sure that the Deputies could explain it in a subsequent affidavit (or an expert affidavit if need be). England is the source of much of our law and I would expect to be readily satisfied in substance were I to go that route.
[27] But this is a case of first impression (or near first impression). The principles to be applied must withstand scrutiny not just for our closest allies but for others too. There may be jurisdictions whose legal systems are based on different conceptions of “life, liberty, and security of the person,” personal integrity, and autonomy. We regard these features as central organizing principles of our polity. Should this court enforce judgments in rem concerning capacity or incapacity on proof of a real and substantial connection alone without considering whether the foreign court applies a legal order that differs fundamentally from our own on issues of such central and fundamental importance to our definition of humanity?
[28] I invite counsel for the applicants to give thought to the structure of the proceeding going forward. They should consult the OPGT and any other organization whom they may think would be helpful in making submissions, if any. They should then convene a case conference before me on notice to any such entitles and to anyone who contacts them proactively so as to set a process to hear the remainder of this application.
15In Fisher, Justice Myers held two hearings and the case involved the OPGT.
16Counsel have provided extensive submissions on the issues raised by the court.
Service on the Respondent
17The respondent’s cognitive abilities have deteriorated considerably since his daughter was appointed as guardian in Israel. He was served with the original Israeli application and hence was aware of the application. He was content to have his daughter be his guardian for personal care and property
18The applicant’s daughter and the respondent’s social worker both provided evidence that the respondent was aware of the original application but that nothing would be gained by formally serving him with this application given his cognitive issues and inability to communicate. The court agrees it would be futile to serve the respondent and accordingly the court dispenses with service of this application on the respondent.
Should the OPGT be involved?
19The applicant’s counsel provided extensive materials on the framework of the Israeli guardianship process. Israel has a supervisory role played by the Guardian General who has functions similar to the OPGT.
20In fact, the Guardian General has more intrusive measures in its oversight of guardians including requiring them to report an on an annual basis and passing of accounts. Also, the Guardian General can demand more frequent reporting.
21Therefore, the court dispenses with the necessity of involving the OPGT in this matter.
Is there a real and substantial connection to the parties and issues to Israel? Can it be confirmed that the Israeli Order was not obtained by fraud or a breach of natural justice, and would not violate Canadian public policy?
22The court finds that the respondent had a real and substantial connection to Israel at the time of the issuance of the Israeli Order because:
He lived there since 1993;
The bulk of his assets are in Israel;
The applicant lives there; and
The original application was commenced where he resided, i.e. Israel.
23There is no evidence that the Final Order was obtained by fraud or a breach of natural justice.
24Finally, the Israeli system mirrors the provisions in the Ontario SDA. The guardian has duties, must file management and guardianship plans and must carry out their responsibilities in accordance with the Israeli legislation and the plans filed with the court.
25Changes to the plans can be made in the future in the event of a material change of circumstance.
26Accordingly, the application is granted.
Justice A. Doyle
Date: March 18, 2026
CITATION: Abitbol v. Abitbol, 2026 ONSC 1636
COURT FILE NO.: CV-25-101943
DATE: 2026/03/18
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Vivane Esther Abitbol, Guardian of Joseph Abitbol, Applicant
-and-
Joseph Abitbol, Respondent
COUNSEL: Ms. Vinograd and Ms. Gillespie for the Applicant
No one appearing for the Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
DOYLE J.
Released: March 18, 2026