CITATION: Lachance v Campbell, 2026 ONSC 2280
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY COURT
JULIE LACHANCE Applicant
– and –
HERMAN CAMPBELL Respondent
J. KORMAN – AGENT S. GAGNON (Counsel of Record in the Proceeding before the Superior Court of Québec)
M. DONALDSON - AGENT
Heard: April 2, 2026
AMENDED DECISION ON MOTION
L. E. FRYER, J
1This motion was brought by the Applicant, Ms. Lachance, for a determination that the Superior Court of Québec is the appropriate jurisdiction for the disposition of the outstanding claims between the parties, namely child support.1
I. BACKGROUND
2This case has a tortured history. The parties have been litigating for many years in both Ontario and Québec.
3The parties have two children: Hillary-Lise Campbell (“Hillary”), born August 5, 2004, and Claire-Maranda Campbell (“Claire”), born August 24, 2007.
4The parties separated on September 29, 2015. At that time, the parties had been living in Ontario and engaged in litigation before the Superior Court, Family Division in Oshawa.
5Pursuant to the final order of Justice Nicholson, dated February 8, 2018, Ms. Lachance was granted sole custody (now sole decision-making authority) and primary residence and was permitted to move with the children to Québec, which she promptly did. The governing final order with respect to child support is the order of Justice Timms, dated August 28, 2019.
6The parties divorced on November 29, 2018.
7Mr. Campbell’s evidence is that he was cut off from the children after they moved to Québec. He commenced a variation proceeding in the Superior Court of Québec on October 27, 2021. The issue of parenting time was actively litigated. A psychosocial expert report for Claire was commissioned and a lawyer was appointed for Claire.
8Mr. Campbell then withdrew his claim before the Superior Court of Québec on May 27, 2022. At para. 13 of her affidavit, sworn March 3, 2026, Ms. Lachance deposed: “My Quebec equivalent of a Form 10: Answer, is attached hereto as “Exhibit B”, it was not withdrawn and the proceeding remains open; when I acquired on March 25, 2025, I do so in the context of the 2021 Application”. I will discuss this statement further in my analysis below.
9For reasons that are disputed, the parties’ children came to Ontario to live with Mr. Campbell in April 2023. According to the endorsement of Justice Leef, dated September 1, 2023, there was already a plan in place for Hillary to come to Ontario, but Mr. Campbell also brought Claire to Ontario without the consent of Ms. Lachance, contrary to the existing final parenting order of Justice Nicholson.
10Mr. Campbell commenced a Motion to Change before the court in Oshawa on May 2, 2023 (“the Ontario Motion to Change”). The only relief he sought was parenting related. No financial relief was ever formally pled.
11Ms. Lachance, who was self-represented, filed a Response to Motion to Change in which she objected to the jurisdiction of this court, among other things. She also checked the box indicating she was making her own claim to vary spousal support, although she does not set out the grounds for the variation.
12The parties have been steadily litigating both parenting and child support issues since the proceeding was commenced in this jurisdiction.
13Ms. Lachance did not request a ruling on the issue of jurisdiction before now.
14Ms. Lachance’s position is that this Motion to Change was improperly commenced in this jurisdiction because the children were habitually resident in Québec. She further argues that, as the children are now adults, and as neither she nor Mr. Campbell formally raised child support claims in their pleadings, there are no justiciable claims before this court. As there is a live proceeding before the Superior Court of Québec dealing with child support for Hillary, Ms. Lachance argues that the Québec court is the proper jurisdiction to deal with the parties’ outstanding claims. Lastly, Ms. Lachance asserts that, even if this court has jurisdiction simpliciter, it should decline to exercise it based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
15For reasons that follow, I find that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice is the appropriate jurisdiction to determine these variation proceedings pursuant to s. 5 of the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.).
II. ANALYSIS
16The Divorce Act provides as follows:
Jurisdiction in variation proceedings
5 (1) A court in a province has jurisdiction to hear and determine a variation 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.
Jurisdiction if two proceedings commenced on different days
(2) If variation proceedings between the same former spouses and in respect of the same matter are pending in two courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction under subsection (1) and were commenced on different days, and the proceeding that was commenced first is not discontinued, the court in which a variation proceeding was commenced first has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any variation proceeding then pending between the former spouses in respect of that matter and the second variation proceeding is deemed to be discontinued.
1. Does the Ontario Superior Court of Justice have jurisdiction simpliciter?
(a) Does the Ontario Superior Court of Justice have exclusive jurisdiction as the Ontario Motion to Change was commenced first?
17The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec both have prima facie jurisdiction to hear a variation application in this case.
18Mr. Campbell commenced the Ontario Motion to Change on May 2, 2023. He was self-represented. He only sought parenting orders.
19Ms. Lachance argues that she still had claims before the Superior Court of Québec contained in her responding pleadings to Mr. Campbell’s 2021 variation application. However, Ms. Lachance did not produce proof that this claim remained open and thus pre-dated the Ontario Motion to Change.
20Ms. Lachance purported to attach her responding pleadings as Exhibit “B” to her affidavit sworn March 3, 2026. However, the document at Exhibit “B” is Mr. Campbell’s original claim, dated October 12, 2021 (“Demande Introductive D’Instance du Defendeur…”). When I asked Mr. Korman to explain the error, he advised that he did not speak French, but understood this to be his client’s Answer equivalent.
21Ms. Lachance’s lawyer of record in the Québec proceeding is Susie Gagnon. She was present in court on the motion before me. Ms. Gagnon has represented Ms. Lachance for some time in the Québec proceedings, and I asked her to provide me with the “missing” document. While she provided me with a variety of court documents, none supported Ms. Lachance’s position that she had an outstanding variation claim under the Divorce Act that pre-dated the Ontario Motion to Change. I draw an adverse inference from Ms. Lachance’s failure to produce this document in her initial motion materials and later when given a chance to remedy the omission.
22Ms. Gagnon provided the “Demande Modifiée de la Demanderesse en Modification de Pension Alimentaire Pour Enfants et Ordannance de Sauvegarde”, dated September 22, 2025. There are few modifications, and they are underlined. It is clear that the rest of the document was produced after Mr. Campbell brought the Ontario Motion to Change, as there are numerous references to the Ontario variation proceeding.
23Ms. Gagnon also provided the court, for the first time, a copy of the order of Justice April of the Superior Court of Québec, dated March 25, 2025. In para. 1 of that order, Justice April stated that, on March 7, 2025, Ms. Lachance served Mr. Campbell with a “Demande Introductive d’Instance en Modification de la Pension Alimentaire Pour Enfants”. There is no suggestion that this is a continuation of an earlier variation proceeding.
24Ms. Lachance appears to have a claim for damages for abuse of process as against Mr. Campbell, dated May 18, 2022 (“Demande de la Demanderesse en Declaration d'Abus de la Demande en Justice Deposée par le Defendeur”). Again, there is no suggestion that this is a corollary relief variation application pursuant to the Divorce Act.
25Out of an abundance of caution, I requested a meeting with a judge of the Superior Court of Québec to clarify the status of the proceedings before that court in accordance with the court’s communication protocols in jurisdictional disputes. On April 14, 2026, I met with Justice Marie-France Vincent by Zoom. Justice Vincent confirmed that Ms. Lachance did not have an outstanding claim to vary child support that pre-dated Mr. Campbell’s Motion to Change. She also advised that the parties were scheduled to appear in the Superior Court of Québec on Mr. Campbell’s jurisdictional motion, but that attendance was simply to set a hearing date.
26I find that the Ontario Motion to Change was the first variation proceeding to be commenced.
27Ms. Lachance submitted that, because the Ontario Motion to Change only dealt with parenting of the children and because they are now both adults, Mr. Campbell has no justiciable claims before this court. She further argues that the only remaining “child of the marriage” is Hillary. The evidence raises questions as to the dependent status of both children, but this is not determinative of the issue before me.
28Ms. Lachance argued in submissions that she has no claims before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice as she did not commence a claim in her Response to Motion to Change. That is not technically correct; as noted above, she ticked the box seeking to vary spousal support.
29Section 5(2) of the Divorce Act does not refer to a pending proceeding in respect of a specific claim, such as one for decision-making authority, parenting time or child support. It refers to a pending claim in respect of that “matter” which is a broader term.
30Sections 3–7 of the Divorce Act are designed to clarify jurisdictional disputes in claims brought under the Act. This is to ensure that there are not two claims being brought in different jurisdictions and to avoid conflicting decisions.
31The language of the Divorce Act must be read as purposive. Once a variation proceeding has been commenced, all related variation claims should be heard in the same jurisdiction. When Mr. Campbell sought to vary the primary residence of the children, any claims to vary child support were necessarily “in respect of that matter”, even if not initially claimed by him.
32Mr. Campbell should have been more diligent in amending his pleadings to formalize his claim for child support. However, I do not find the fact that he has not yet amended his pleadings to be determinative of the jurisdiction issue in this case. As will be discussed in more detail below, both parties treated the issue of the variation of child support as live before this court for over two years. For example, Justice Finlayson made a temporary order for child support on April 11, 2024. This temporary order remains in force.
33Ms. Lachance did not commence her variation proceeding in the Superior Court of Québec seeking child support for Hillary until March 7, 2025.
34For these reasons, I find that as Mr. Campbell’s variation proceeding was commenced first and has not been discontinued, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the variation proceedings between the parties, including any claims for child and/or spousal support.
(b) Did Ms. Lachance otherwise accept the jurisdiction of this court?
35If I am wrong with respect to my conclusions above, I would alternatively find that Ms. Lachance accepted the jurisdiction of this court as per s. 5(1)(b) of the Divorce Act.
36Ms. Lachance filed a Response to Motion to Change, dated May 18, 2023 (her defence to Mr. Campbell’s variation claim). Although she clearly signalled that she was objecting to the court’s jurisdiction, she did not bring a motion for a formal ruling. She also ticked the box for spousal support under “Part B – Changes that the Respondent Party Wants to Make”. By making this selection, Ms. Lachance advanced a substantive claim before this court.
37Ms. Lachance and Mr. Campbell then engaged in active litigation before this court that continued right up to this motion. There were multiple court attendances and procedural 14B motions. Justice Leef (who was the case management judge) and Justice Finlayson (who heard motions) both noted the voluminous court file.
38On July 11, 2023, Ms. Lachance brought an ex parte/without notice motion seeking 33 different orders, including substantive relief, such as, spousal support and other monetary amounts.
39On September 1, 2023, at a Case Conference, Justice Leef ordered the appointment of the Children’s Lawyer for Claire and the parties consented to a custody and access assessment. There is no mention of jurisdiction being disputed in Justice Leef’s endorsement from that day.
40On October 30, 2023, the parties attended before Justice Finlayson for a motion. Ms. Lachance’s lawyer from Québec, Susie Gagnon, was present for the motion. Jurisdiction was not mentioned as an issue. Rather, Ms. Lachance, through Ms. Gagnon, advised the court that she was intending to move back to Ontario. The court also noted that Mr. Campbell, who was self-represented, intended to add child support claims to his motion.
41On April 11, 2024, Justice Finlayson heard Mr. Campbell’s motion to vary the final child support order of Justice Timms, dated August 28, 2019. The motion was contested by Ms. Lachance, but not on the basis of jurisdiction. Justice Finlayson found that Hillary was not a child of the marriage, whereas Claire continued to qualify for child support and was living with Mr. Campbell. Justice Finlayson terminated the existing child support order on a temporary basis and ordered Ms. Lachance to pay child support. Justice Finlayson specifically held that Ms. Lachance’s request for a retroactive increase to child support would be an issue for the trial.
42On October 31, 2024, a Trial Scheduling Conference was set to proceed before Justice Leef. Mr. Campbell was unprepared and had not filed the required documents. Ms. Lachance filed the draft Trial Scheduling Endorsement form in which she listed her claim for child support (“pension alimentaire & retroactive & FRO”)
43On January 27, 2025, Ms. Lachance brought a procedural 14B motion seeking a date for an urgent motion relating to child support. Justice Leef dismissed this motion.
44On March 10, 2025, Ms. Lachance brought two more 14B motions. Justice Leef ruled on those motions on March 21, 2025. Justice Leef noted that, while the relief sought was unclear, it appeared that Ms. Lachance was seeking child support for Hillary. Justice Leef granted Ms. Lachance leave to bring a regular motion on the sole issue of child support and s. 7 expenses. Justice Leef also further adjourned the upcoming Trial Scheduling Conference as Mr. Campbell had still not filed the proper documents.
45At essentially the same time, Ms. Lachance brought a motion dated, March 7, 2025, before the Superior Court of Québec seeking child support for Hillary, who she alleged had returned to her care. Justice April of the Superior Court of Québec heard the motion on March 25, 2025. Mr. Campbell did not file any materials or attend on the motion. He claims that he was not served. Justice April made a child support order for Hillary based on an imputed income for Mr. Campbell.
46Mr. Campbell then brought a procedural 14B motion before Justice Leef seeking to stay the proceeding in Québec. On June 3, 2025, Justice Leef held that this motion needed to be brought in Québec. Mr. Campbell has a motion scheduled for April 21, 2026, in the Superior Court of Québec.
47Justice Leef also stated in this same endorsement from June 3, 2025, at p. 1: “the proceedings before the Ontario Court are continuing and both parties have recognized this Court’s jurisdiction”. Justice Leef went on to find, at p. 1, that according to her further 14B motion, Ms. Lachance
appears to accept that the interests of justice require that one court assume jurisdiction over all outstanding issues between the parties. [She] appears to suggest that she is content for the proceedings to take place in either Ontario or Quebec provided she is permitted to amend her Ontario pleadings [to] include claims raised in the Quebec action.
48Four months passed before Ms. Lachance took steps to deal with the jurisdictional issue by bringing a 14B motion seeking leave to bring this motion. On October 17, 2025, Justice Leef granted leave.
49I find that Ms. Lachance accepted the jurisdiction of this court.
50Even if I were to find that Ms. Lachance did not consent to this court’s jurisdiction, I find that she attorned to it. She regularly took steps inconsistent with a denial of this court’s jurisdiction. Ms. Lachance filed responding pleadings seeking substantive relief and she sought substantive relief from the court on several occasions: see C.C. v. J.B., 2021 ONCA 363, at para. 9.
51Mr. Campbell has still not formally amended the Ontario Motion to Change to seek child support. However, both parties have proceeded as though that was a live issue and this deficiency is easily remedied. Ms. Lachance has repeatedly sought to bring forward her own claims for support for herself and for Hillary. Again, she can formally amend her pleadings to advance these claims.
2. Should this Court Decline jurisdiction as it is forum non conviens
52Ms. Lachance argued that this court should rely on the doctrine of forum non conveniens and decline to exercise its jurisdiction in this matter.
53The doctrine of forum non conveniens can be considered when a court otherwise has jurisdiction simpliciter as I have found here.
54The burden is on Ms. Lachance to show why this court should decline jurisdiction on the basis that Québec is “clearly the more appropriate forum”: Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 572, at para. 108.
55It is open to the court to consider forum non conveniens, even when parties have consented to or attorned to the court’s jurisdiction: Momentous.ca Corp. v. Canadian American Assn. of Professional Baseball Ltd., 2010 ONCA 722, 103 O.R. (3d) 467, at paras. 36–38.
56In Li v. Li, 2021 ONCA 669, 159 O.R. (3d) 216, at para. 42, the court summarized the factors applicable when considering the doctrine of forum non conveniens:
In essence, the doctrine focuses on the circumstances of the case, and its purpose is to ensure that both parties are treated fairly and that the process for resolving their litigation is efficient: Van Breda, at para. 105. The factors that come into play in considering the question of forum non conveniens depend on the context and may include the locations of parties and witnesses, the cost of transferring the case to another place, the impact of a transfer on the case or a related case, the possibility of conflicting judgments, problems relating to recognition or enforcement of judgments, and the relative strengths of the connections of the parties: Van Breda, at para. 110.
57With respect to this case, many of these factors apply equally to both Ontario and Québec and do not assist Ms. Lachance.
58Hillary moved back to Québec in or around August 2024. Ms. Lachance states that Hillary is unable to withdraw from parental control and is still a child of the marriage due to mental health challenges. This is disputed by Mr. Campbell who states that Hillary is enrolled in school and doing well, is employed by Porter Airlines and travelled independently to Costa Rica as recently as January 2026.
59Claire is living in Ontario. Ms. Lachance questioned whether she was still in school, but Mr. Campbell provided proof of her enrolment at York University. It is also disputed whether she has withdrawn from parental control or is in the care of Mr. Campbell, even if she is living away from home to attend university.
60The parties each argued that the location of key witnesses and evidence favoured their position. Ms. Lachance stressed that there would need to be significant evidence adduced related to Hillary’s mental health and care. Mr. Campbell argued that his income from self-employment is a key factor, and his various business records are located in Ontario. Given the court’s ability to receive electronic documents (mandatory in this court) and for witnesses to attend virtually, I give these factors less weight.
61Mr. Campbell argued that he is at a disadvantage as he does not speak French, whereas Ms. Lachance is bilingual. Each party has a right to a bilingual proceeding under s. 14 of the Official Languages Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 31 (4th Supp.), regardless of the jurisdiction.
62In terms of geographical factors, each party resides in a different jurisdiction. Ms. Lachance argued that she feared having to leave Hillary to attend a trial in person in Oshawa. This court can continue to easily arrange for virtual hearings, if necessary.
63The multiplicity of proceedings in this matter is inappropriate. For example, Ms. Lachance sought the same relief from this court and from the Superior Court of Québec in the same week. Justice Finlayson made an order for child support for Claire and Justice April made a separate order for child support for Hillary. These claims need to be considered together in one jurisdiction.
64I do not find that declining jurisdiction would deprive Mr. Campbell of a legitimate juridical advantage. However, to decline jurisdiction at this late stage of the litigation will result in unnecessary duplication of effort and increased expense to both parties.
65For these reasons I find that Ms. Lachance has not met the burden of demonstrating that this court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction and rely on the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
ORDER:
The Applicant’s motion is dismissed.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the variation proceedings between the parties.
The Respondent/Moving Party on the Motion to Change shall amend his Motion to Change to include any financial orders being sought within 21 days. The Applicant/Responding Party on the Motion to Change shall serve and file her amended Response to Motion to Change 30 days thereafter.
The parties shall obtain a date for a Trial Scheduling Conference through the Trial Coordinator.
No further motions shall be brought without leave of the court obtained by 14B motion on notice to the attention of the case management judge or Justice Fryer.
The parties shall deliver written submissions with respect to costs pursuant to r. 24(19) of the Family Law Rules.
These reasons shall be forthwith translated into French by Court Services and uploaded to Case Centre.
Justice L. E. Fryer
Date Released: April 20, 2026
Footnotes
- This case has proceeded as a bilingual matter. However, Ms. Lachance filed her materials for the motion, except for some court documents from the Superior Court of Québec, in English and her lawyer retained for this motion did not speak French. At the commencement of the motion, I advised the parties that I was not bilingual and that, if this motion was to proceed as a bilingual matter, it would need to be adjourned. Ms. Lachance confirmed that she was content that the matter proceed solely in English.