ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY COURT
BETWEEN:
Yaning Zhao also known as Annie Zhao
Applicant
– and –
Zhiqiang Wang also known as Zhi Qiang Wang
Respondent
William Abbott, for the Applicant
James B.C. Edney, for the Respondent
HEARD: June 2, 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION
1The Respondent, Zhi Wang, brings this motion to dismiss the Applicant’s Amended Application under the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.) and the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 on the ground that the Ontario Court lacks jurisdiction because the issues raised in the Amended Application were finally resolved in an action commenced by the Applicant in the People’s Court in China.
Facts
2The facts relevant to the jurisdictional issue raised in this motion are not in dispute.
3The parties were married in Toronto, Ontario on March 31, 2014. This was the second marriage for both.
4The Applicant is now 49 years of age, the Respondent is 59 years of age.
5The Respondent alleges that they separated on March 5, 2018. The Applicant agrees that the parties were physically separated by that date, but she alleges that they legally separated on July 21, 2021. This factual dispute is not relevant to the jurisdictional issue raised in this motion.
6The Applicant is a citizen of China, but has been a resident in Ontario since 2013 and became a permanent resident in 2016. She states that she has resided in Ontario “for the majority of the parties’ relationship and at all material times since separation”. She states that her last residence in China was from August 7, 2019 to September 10, 2019.
7The Respondent is a citizen and resident of China. The Applicant acknowledges that the Respondent maintained only limited and intermittent physical presence in Ontario during the marriage, typically visiting approximately one month per year. The Respondent obtained Permanent Resident Status in Canada in 2005, but failed to meet the residency requirement to maintain that status, and his permanent residency status expired in 2017. The Respondent has only returned to Canada once since September, 2019.
8Both parties had children from their previous marriage. The Respondent’s children from the previous marriage are both adults.
9The parties have one biological child, Tina, born September 3, 2014. She was born in Ontario and has lived her entire life in Ontario. Tina resides with the Applicant.
10The Applicant also has a daughter, Vivian, from a previous marriage. Vivian was born on December 2, 2006. Vivian resides with the Applicant. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent stood in loco parentis to Vivian while the parties were married. The Respondent disputes this.
11The parties agree that the Respondent has had no meaningful contact with the Applicant or the children since at least August 2022.
Chinese Court Proceedings
12On May 18, 2022, the Applicant commenced a divorce and corollary relief proceeding against the Respondent in the Chinese Court for all claims relating to the breakdown of the parties’ marriage (the “Chinese Divorce Claim”). The Respondent was personally served in China with the Applicant’s divorce claim and defended the action, including making claims of his own.
13The “Civil Statement of Claim” dated May 18, 2022 requested:
a. An order to dissolve the marriage.
b. An order to grant custody the daughter of the marriage to the Applicant and child support payable by the Respondent in the amount of RMB 25,000 Yuan per month [approximately $5,000 CAD] until she turns 18 years of age.
c. An order to divide the spouses’ assets and property according to law.
d. Costs
14In the Civil Statement of Claim, the Applicant stated: “Both parties have not seen each other since August 2019, and both parties have separated and lived apart for more than two years.”
15Prior to commencing proceedings in China, the Applicant retained a lawyer in Ontario, Ms. Renee Ru Nan-Shi. Ms. Nan-Shi commissioned the Applicant’s signature on her Civil Statement of Claim with the Chinese Court.
16Ms. Nan-Shi wrote a letter to the Respondent’s son on July 20, 2022 in which she advised, inter alia, “my office has been retained to commence legal proceedings, filing divorce applications and to seek equalization for family assets.” No proceedings were commenced in Ontario.
17The Applicant’s Civil Statement of Claim stated that she was resident in China. In addition, the Applicant filed with the Chinese Court a document entitled “Proof of Residence” issued by Tian Ma Neighborhood Committee of Gu Xian Street, Yantai City Economic and Technology Development Zone. This “Proof of Residence” indicated that the Applicant and Respondent resided at Suite 2801, Building #10, Hao Jing Yuan Complex, Tian Ma Xiang Cheng, 367 Huang He Road, Yantai Economic and Technology Development Zone, China “for a full year as of now. They are residents of our neighborhood”.
18In the proceeding before me, the Applicant explained that this was “the Chinese address where I resided when we married and each time I visited China with the children. That is the address of my ‘home’ in China”. She attests that she has not returned to China since “the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic”, but consulted with a lawyer “who confirmed that I could use that address for the proof of residence requirement for the Chinese proceeding”.
19The Applicant was represented by counsel (Tian Xiang Yi and Shu Hui Li) at the hearing held in China.
20While the Applicant could have commenced her divorce proceedings in Ontario, her decision to bring her divorce proceedings in China made sense. The major properties in this matter are located in China and any child support order obtained will have to be enforced in China.
Chinese Divorce Judgment
21On September 20, 2023, the Chinese Court granted a judgment that determined the issues of divorce, parenting, and child support (the “Divorce Judgment”). The Divorce Judgment granted a divorce, ordered custody of Tina to the Applicant and ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant child support of 10,000 Yuan (approximately $2,000 CAD) per month until Tina turns 18.
22There is no dispute that the Respondent has complied with his child support obligations since this Order was made by the Chinese Court.
23With respect to property division: the Divorce Judgment stated that due to insufficient evidence, the claim for the division of marital property would be dealt with by the Chinese Court at a later date if either party were to make a separate claim for it.
24In the Chinese Court proceedings, the Applicant claimed that the Respondent owned multiple properties, vehicles, shares in multiple companies, securities and futures, bank savings and other properties in his name. The Applicant applied to the court to investigate these various properties and property transactions. The Respondent claimed that most of these properties were pre-marital properties and investments.
25The Court held as follows:
As for the Applicant’s claim for division of marital property, based on the testimonies of both the Applicant and the Respondent and the relevant evidence, this court believes that according to Article 67, paragraph 1, of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence of their claims. From the evidence submitted by the Applicant and the Respondent, the exact situation of the marital property of the Applicant and the Respondents cannot be ascertained, and further the property claimed by both parties includes diverse property types, with complex timing in terms of acquisition or formation, involving huge amounts, and also involving foreign property, interest an obligations of third parties unrelated to this case, and other existing elements. There are huge differences in the above issues by both parties and no consensus can be reached. Therefore, the issue of division of property between the Applicant and the Respondent will not be dealt with in this trial. Both the Applicant and the Respondent can make a separate claim based on relevant evidence.
26On October 10, 2023, the Applicant appealed the Divorce Judgment to the Intermediate People’s Court of Yantai City with respect to child support and the division of property. The Applicant did not appeal the decree of divorce. She was represented by counsel.
27The Appeal was dismissed on November 27, 2023. In dismissing the appeal, the Court stated:
The amount of child support should be determined based on the actual needs of the child, the affordability of both the parents and the actual local living standards. Because [the Applicant] did not fully prove the actual needs of the child of the marriage… the trial court decided that [the Respondent] should pay 10,000 Yuan in monthly support to the child of the marriage… and this court will not adjust it. Another and further claim can be made separately if the increase of support becomes necessary.
28On February 19, 2024, the Respondent did commence a claim for division of marital property in accordance with the terms of the original judgment. This claim was served on the Applicant on August 16, 2025. The Trial of that claim is scheduled to take place on July 30, 2026.
29The Respondent commenced a separate court proceeding in China to seek an Order for parenting time with Tina. The Respondent’s Civil Statement of Claim dated July 1, 2025 was also served on August 16, 2025. There is not currently a court date scheduled for this Claim.
Ontario Application
30On January 23, 2024, the Applicant commenced an Application in Ontario (the Ontario Application). In that Application, the Applicant took the position that the Chinese divorce was not valid and was of no force or effect in Ontario because she was not a resident of China at least one year immediately preceding the commencement of the divorce proceedings. She argues that the Chinese Court did not have jurisdiction to grant the divorce.
31On that basis, the Ontario Application seeks a declaration that the Chinese divorce dated September 20, 2023 is invalid and should be set aside, an order for divorce under the Canada Divorce Act, an order granting her sole decision making authority over Tina and Vivian, child support and s. 7 expenses, imputation of income to the Respondent, spousal support, and a declaration that the Applicant is a 50% beneficial owner of listed properties located in Ontario, an order for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home1, and an uneven division of the family’s net family property.
32The Respondent was served with the Ontario Application in China on April 24, 2024.
Jurisdictional Motion
33The Respondent takes the position that the Chinese divorce was valid, and that Ontario therefore has no jurisdiction to address the relief claimed by the Applicant in her Ontario Application. The Applicant chose to bring the divorce proceedings in China and cannot ask for a do-over in Ontario because she does not like the result of the Chinese decisions.
34The Respondent has not attorned to the jurisdiction, and has therefore filed no response to the Ontario Application, but has brought this motion to dismiss the Ontario Application on the basis that the Ontario Court does not have jurisdiction to hear it.
35This motion to dismiss the Ontario Application on jurisdictional grounds proceeded pursuant to the Case Conference Endorsement issued by Daurio J. on July 17, 2025.
Analysis
i) Is the Chinese Divorce valid?
36The first issue to be determined is whether the Chinese divorce granted on September 20, 2023 is valid.
37The Applicant argues that the Chinese divorce was not valid because she was not a resident of China for at least one year immediately preceding the commencement of the divorce proceedings in that country.
38At the outset it will be helpful to set out the expert evidence submitted by the Respondent with respect to family law in China. This evidence was provided through the affidavit of Wei (Sabrina) Wang, who was qualified to practice law in mainland China in 2002, and obtained her Ph.D. in Law, with a specialization in Family Law, in China in 2007. She served as an associate professor of law in China until 2014, after which she entered private practice at a Chinese law firm. She graduated from Osgoode Hall Law School of York University in 2019, and was called to the Ontario Bar in 2021. She now practices family law in both China and Ontario.
39Ms. Wang’s evidence is that where both parties to the divorce are Chinese nationals, if one party is residing within China and the other party is residing outside China, either party may sue for divorce at the court where one party has a domicile in China. That is precisely the situation in this case: both parties are Chinese citizens and at least one party (the Respondent) is domiciled in China. Therefore, the Chinese Court had jurisdiction over the divorce proceeding.
40In this regard, the law in China is similar to the law under the Divorce Act, which provides, at s. 3(1):
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.
41The Applicant argues that she lied about her Chinese residency when she commenced these proceedings in China. Based on the law as set out by Ms. Wang, whether the Applicant was a resident of China when she commenced the divorce proceedings in China is not relevant to the Chinese Court’s jurisdiction to grant the divorce. There is no dispute that the Respondent was and remains a resident of China, and this was sufficient to grant the Chinese Court jurisdiction over the divorce proceedings commenced by the Applicant.
42Section 22 of the Divorce Act recognizes the validity of the Chinese divorce in Canada. Section 22 provides:
Recognition of foreign divorce
22 (1) A divorce granted, on or after the coming into force of this Act, by a competent authority shall be recognized for the purpose of determining the marital status in Canada of any person, if either former spouse was habitually resident in the country or subdivision of the competent authority for at least one year immediately preceding the commencement of proceedings for the divorce.
43Again, there is no dispute that the Respondent was habitually resident in China for at least one year immediately preceding the commencement of the Chinese divorce proceeding.
44The onus is on the Applicant to adduce evidence demonstrating that the foreign divorce was not properly obtained: Vyazemskaya v. Safin, 2024 ONCA 156, at para. 22. She has failed to adduce such evidence. There are no grounds upon which the Applicant can challenge the validity of the Chinese divorce. The Applicant chose that forum. She had legal representation throughout the proceedings. The Chinese Court had the jurisdiction to grant the divorce and the corollary orders. The basis of the Chinese Court’s jurisdiction is consistent with ss. 3(1) and 22(1) of the Divorce Act. The Applicant cannot challenge the validity of the foreign divorce solely on the basis that she might have yielded a better result if she had brought the proceeding in Ontario: Vyazemskaya, at para. 25.
45The Ontario Court of Appeal in Vyazemskaya, at paras. 31 and 33, refers to “unfair forum-shopping tactics” as a possible basis for refusing to recognize a foreign divorce. If there are “unfair forum-shopping tactics” at play in this case, it is the Applicant who is using those tactics. The Applicant brought the divorce proceedings in China and is now trying to invalidate the Chinese divorce in the hope of attaining a better outcome in Ontario.
ii) What is the effect of the validity of the Chinese Divorce on the Ontario Application?
Claim for Divorce and Spousal Support
46The second issue to be determined is what effect of the validity of the Chinese divorce has on the Application commenced in Ontario by the Applicant.
47The immediate effect of the validity of the Chinese divorce is that the Applicant’s request in the Ontario Application for a declaration that the Chinese divorce dated September 20, 2023 is invalid and should be set aside, and an order for divorce under the Canada Divorce Act, must be dismissed.
48Another consequence of recognizing the Chinese divorce is that the Applicant can no longer claim spousal support under either the Divorce Act or the Family Law Act: Sonia v. Ratan, 2024 ONCA 152, para. 1. In Sonia, the Court of Appeal explained, at para. 11:
I arrive at this conclusion recognizing however, as did the motion judge, that the effect of recognition of the Bangladesh divorce in Canada, is to deny Sonia’s request for spousal support to which she might have been entitled had she divorced in Ontario. This is because, unlike Part I of the Family Law Act dealing with family property, Part III of the Family Law Act, dealing with support obligations, does not include the phrase “former spouse” when describing who may apply for support. Ontario cases have therefore interpreted the Family Law Act as not permitting a former spouse, such as Sonia, to seek spousal support.: Rothgiesser v. Rothgiesser (2000), 2000 CanLII 1153 (ON CA), 46 O.R. (3d) 577 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 26; Okmyansky v. Okmyansky, 2007 ONCA 427, 86 O.R. (3d) 587, at para. 42; and Cheng v. Liu, 2017 ONCA 104, 136 O.R. (3d) 172, at paras. 27-30.
49See also Vyazemskaya, at paras. 3, 4 and 11.
50Accordingly, the Ontario Application for spousal support must also be dismissed.
Claim for Child Support
51The questions of child support and equalization of net family property is more complicated.
52The Court of Appeal has recognized that “where a court issuing a divorce has not adjudicated the issue of child support, provincial legislation is a valid means of seeking a child support remedy”. Cheng v. Liu, 2017 ONCA 104, at para. 43 [Emphasis added].
53In the present case, the Chinese Court did, at the Applicant’s behest, adjudicate the issue of child support, and awarded the equivalent of approximately $2,000 per month with respect to the parties’ daughter Tina. The Respondent’s expert on Chinese family law explained that under Chinese law, child support is determined as a single aggregate sum, without the separate categorization into “table amount” and “special and extraordinary expenses”.
54The Chinese Court also ordered custody of Tina to the Applicant, which is essentially the relief requested by the Applicant in her Ontario Application, so there is no basis or reason to relitigate that issue in Ontario.
55In Mehralian v. Dunmore, 2023 ONCA 806, the appellant appealed the validity of an Omani foreign divorce. The trial judge concluded that because the appellant had voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of Omani courts and participated in proceedings there, she could not be heard to challenge that court’s jurisdiction in Ontario. This decision was upheld in the Court of Appeal, which concluded, at paras. 30 - 31:
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…
For the same reason, the Divorce Recognition Judge did not err in his finding that the applicant could not relitigate issues that she had unsuccessfully raised before the Omani court.
56See also: Wei v. Song, 2024 ONSC 5978, at para. 22:
While the court does have jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues of equalization of net family property and support under the Family Law Act, notwithstanding a foreign divorce (Cheng v. Liu (2017), 136 O.R. (ed) 172 (C.A.)), equalization and support issues were already dealt with by the Shanghai People’s Court.
57These principles apply in the present case, where the Applicant not only attorned to the jurisdiction of the Chinese Court, but initiated the proceedings in that Court. She cannot now challenge that Court’s jurisdiction in Ontario or seek to relitigate the issues that have already been determined by that Court at her request. This includes both child support and, subject to what I will say below, equalization of net family property.
58In this regard, I am guided by the helpful summary of the relevant legal principles set out by Himel J. in Taimish v. Al-Kadhimi, 2023 ONSC 378, at para. 26 [Footnotes omitted]:
Having reviewed the relevant legislation and caselaw I find that the Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction for the following reasons:
a. A foreign support order that is properly made and is in full force and effect is not only relevant but is binding upon the parties. As a matter of public policy there should not be two outstanding support orders. A child support order in Ontario creates two competing orders.
b. It is well established that, generally speaking, a court cannot vary a corollary support order contained in a foreign divorce under the Family Law Act. This is logical for a variety of reasons as set out in the caselaw. The only mechanism to make such a variation is pursuant to the interjurisdictional support statutes. Given that the Court cannot vary a federal child support order by Ontario legislation in accordance with the principles of paramountcy, one ought not be able to vary a child support order contained in a foreign divorce judgment by provincial legislation. The Court should be respectful of orders made by foreign courts (as per the notion of comity).
c. In the leading Ontario Court of Appeal case of Cheng v. Liu, the court permitted the adjudication of child support where there was no existing foreign divorce order incorporating provisions for child support. This decision has been considered approximately 27 times since its release in 2017. The cases below provide certain instances/exceptions where the Court may make an order for child support in accordance with the Family Law Act, even though there is a valid foreign divorce order. The first three instances/exceptions clearly do not apply for the following reasons:
i. The foreign divorce is silent as to child support. The Ontario Court has the jurisdiction to make an original order for child support. This approach follows Cheng v. Liu.
ii. The jurisdiction that issued the foreign divorce (with child support provisions) is not a reciprocating jurisdiction under the ISOA. The Ontario Court has the jurisdiction to make an original order for child support. The Unites States is a reciprocating jurisdiction. This exception does not apply.
iii. There is flagrant non-compliance with the existing order for child support as contained in the foreign divorce. Not only has the father fully complied with the Divorce Judgment, he is in compliance with the Bird J. without prejudice order for increased child support and 80% of the child’s section 7 expenses. This exception does not apply.
iv. The fourth instance/exception to the limits imposed in Cheng v. Liu was considered by Diamond J. following a review of various cases (that were decided both before and after the Court of Appeal decision). In summary, where there has been a material change in circumstances leading to a legitimate claim for custody and access in Ontario, and where the Court is satisfied that a foreign order for custody and access should be superseded, the issue of child support can arise anew. However, the parenting time claims cannot be a tactic to establish jurisdiction to claim child support or an attempt to forum-shop as a means to obtain a better order than that contained in the foreign divorce. [Emphasis added.]
d. Other than as set out above, where child support is included in a foreign divorce order any variation must proceed in accordance with ISOA. While it is true that the ISOA is not obligatory where parties wish to vary terms of a separation agreement, no other option is available in Ontario where there is a foreign divorce incorporating child support terms.
59In the present case, the People’s Republic of China is not a reciprocating jurisdiction under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 13, and O. Reg. 53/03.
60While the Applicant cannot use the ISOA process to obtain a variation of the Chinese support order, she can bring such an application in China. The Chinese Appeal Court expressly held: “Another and further claim can be made separately if the increase of support becomes necessary”. The availability of this review process in China was also confirmed by Ms. Wang, the expert in Chinese family law, in her affidavit filed in support of this motion.
61The Ontario Application is not an application under s. 37 of the Family Law Act to vary child support on the basis of a material change in circumstances. It is an application to determine child support ab initio. It is based on the premise that the Chinese Court divorce order was invalid. Having chosen to proceed in the Chinese Courts, the Applicant cannot “attempt to forum-shop as a means to obtain a better order than that contained in the foreign divorce”.
62This is not a case like Rubio v. Joslin, 2018 ONCJ 167, in which the Ontario Court assumed jurisdiction to supersede a valid Colombian court order for child support made under a Colombian divorce order. In that case, none of the parties resided in Colombia, and the Court found that the mother had no other forum in which to reasonably seek relief and was “clearly not engaged in forum shopping” but was seeking to update a child support order that was more than ten years old. The Court stated, at para. 70:
In the case before me, as previously indicated, Ms Rubio cannot proceed with a claim under the ISOA. The mother has no other forum in which she could reasonably seek relief. It would be difficult, extremely costly, and impractical to return to Colombia to seek a variation of the Colombian child support order, particularly when the mother, father and the child have not resided in Colombia for a number of years and the custody and access proceedings are being actively pursued in Ontario where the child is habitually resident. It is also questionable whether the Colombian court would even assume jurisdiction, which the father’s counsel fairly acknowledged during argument.
63The Court in Rubio concluded that Ontario could assume jurisdiction of the of the Applicant’s child support application for the following reasons (at para. 77): none of the parties were residents of Colombia, this was not a case of forum shopping, the Colombian child support order was approximately twelve years old and there were material changes in circumstances, the mother had no other forum in which she could reasonably seek relief, it was questionable whether Colombia would assume jurisdiction given that none of the parties reside there, custody and access were being actively pursued by the father in Ontario.
64None of these circumstances are present in this case.
65Nor is this a case, like Odigie v. Egharevba, 2026 ONSC 3024, where the Court permitted the Applicant mother to bring a claim for child support in Ontario notwithstanding the existence of a child support order from an Irish Court. The evidence in that case was that the Respondent father had never complied with the Irish child support order. Doi J. held, at para. 14:
As Ireland is not a reciprocating jurisdiction under the ISOA, the Irish order essentially has no practical effect as it cannot be enforced against the respondent in Ontario, as clearly shown by his ongoing noncompliance. All of this further supports this court’s exercise of jurisdiction to decide the child support claim: Taimish at para 26(c)(iii). Having regard to the mother’s inability to enforce the Irish order in Ontario, there is no real possibility of double-recovery if this court were to grant her child support claim. Instead, there is a real potential for both children to realize no child support whatsoever if the Ontario court were to decline jurisdiction in this case. In any event, the Irish court awarded child support by imputing only nominal income to the respondent as it had no knowledge of his actual income (i.e., as he did not appear when summonsed or give any financial disclosure). Taking this all into account, I find that deferring to the unenforceable Irish order would be wholly unjust to the children on the particular facts of this case
66The circumstances described by Doi J. as a basis for Ontario assuming jurisdiction in the face of an existing foreign order do not apply to the present case. The evidence in this case is that the Respondent father has fully complied with the child support order issued by the Chinese Court. The amount of child support ordered by the Chinese Court was based on that Court’s consideration of “the actual needs of the child, the affordability of both the parents and the actual local living standards” on the basis of the evidence presented in court by both parties. Moreover, as the Chinese Appeal Court held: “Another and further claim can be made separately if the increase of support becomes necessary”.
67Based on the foregoing, the Applicant’s claim for child support for Tina must be dismissed.
68The final complication with respect to child support is that the Ontario Application claims child support for Vivian, the Applicant’s child from her previous marriage. As indicated above, Vivian was born on December 2, 2006 and resides with the Applicant. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent stood in loco parentis to Vivian while the parties were married, and that Vivian remains a dependant child under s. 31 of the Family Law Act notwithstanding her age. The Respondent disputes this.
69The Applicant did not seek child support for Vivian in her proceedings in China, although the Chinese Court was aware of Vivian and refers to her several times when summarizing the facts of the case. The Chinese judgment did not award any child support with respect to Vivian.
70In her analysis of Chinese family law, Ms. Wang’s affidavit explained that:
According to section 54 of the Interpretation (I) of the Marriage and Family Book, in the event that a biological father divorces a stepmother, or a biological mother divorces a stepfather, and the stepparent does not agree to continue caring for the stepchild who has been under their care and education, the child shall remain in the care of the biological father or biological mother.
71Ms. Wang concludes:
If [the Applicant] includes in her Chinese Application a claim regarding [the Respondent’s] obligation toward Vivian, the Chinese court has jurisdiction to address the issue. However, the court can not make an order requiring Zhiqiang to provide support for Vivian unless he has consented to do so or has legally adopted Vivian.
72The Applicant argues that since the Chinese Divorce Order does not provide for child support for Vivian, the Applicant should be permitted to pursue a claim for child support for Vivian in Ontario.
73The Respondent argues that the Applicant made a deliberate choice to initiate the proceeding in China and not to make a claim for child support for Vivian. She should not now be permitted to split her child support case between two jurisdictions.
74In my view, once the Applicant brought her claim for child support in China with respect to any of her children, she accepted the Chinese law as the basis for any award she might obtain. She chose her forum, and she must accept whatever result that forum’s law provides. Once the Chinese Court made an order for child support, the Applicant is precluded from bringing another claim for child support in Ontario. Permitting the Applicant to proceed in a piecemeal fashion - to bring one child support claim in China and a second child support claim for a different child in Ontario - risks inconsistent findings and could lead to unfairness. For example, the Court in China might have reduced the child support owing for Tina if it knew that the Applicant was also receiving child support in Ontario for Vivian. Child support for all children must be decided by a single court.
75Accordingly, the Applicant’s claim for child support is also dismissed.
Claim for equalization of net family property
76This leaves equalization of net family property. The Ontario Court retains jurisdiction to deal with the equalization of net family property under the Family Law Act if the issue is not dealt with by the foreign court: Sonia, at para. 11.
77As indicated above, the Applicant’s Civil Statement of Claim filed in the Chinese Court sought “an order to divide the spouses assets and property according to law”. The Chinese Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence for the claim for the division of marital property and that the claim would be dealt with by the Chinese Court at a later date if either party were to make a separate claim for it.
78On February 19, 2024 (before he was served with the Ontario Application) the Respondent did commence a claim for division of marital property in accordance with the terms of the original judgment. This claim was served on the Applicant on August 16, 2025. The Trial of that claim is scheduled to take place on July 30, 2026.
79At this stage, it is unknown whether the Chinese court will exercise its jurisdiction to decide all or any of the property issues. The Respondent’s expert in Chinese family law has attested that the Chinese Court might or might not deal decide all property related issues when the case is heard next month. Her affidavit states:
It is uncertain whether, based on further evidence, the People’s Court will be able to adjudicate all property issues. Pursuant to the Interpretations of the Civil Procedure Law referenced in paragraph 17 above, the People’s Court may, in accordance with the principle of “inconvenience of adjudication”, advise the claimant to bring a lawsuit before a foreign court, and may still accept the case even if one party has filed a lawsuit with the foreign court.
Based on the information available, the major properties in this matter are located in China. Accordingly, the Chinese court shall adjudicate the property issues to the greatest extent possible, upon either party’s claims following the divorce. The Chinese court also has the jurisdiction to adjudicate and render judgment in relation to foreign property located outside China. However, in the event that the parties cannot agree on the existence or value of certain property located outside China, and there is no adequate evidence to make the determination, the Chinese court may leave that portion of the property to be adjudicated by the court where it is situated or where it is substantially connected.
80I accept this statement as an accurate assessment of what may happen when the property case is heard in China. It may well be that the division of properties located in Ontario is not dealt with by the Chinese Court, in which case the Applicant’s property related claims may proceed in Ontario. It is, at this stage, premature to decide this part of the Respondent’s motion.
81Accordingly, the Application as it relates to the equalization of net family property and other property claims is stayed pending the final outcome of the proceedings in the People’s Republic of China.
iii) Summary of Conclusions
82The Chinese divorce granted on September 20, 2023 is valid.
83The claim for an order for divorce under the Canada Divorce Act is dismissed.
84The Applicant’s claim for spousal support is dismissed.
85The Applicant’s claim for child support is dismissed.
86The Applicant’s claim for the equalization of net family property and other property claims is stayed pending the final outcome of the proceedings in the People’s Republic of China.
87The Respondent was substantially successful in this motion. If the parties cannot agree on costs, the Respondent may file costs submissions of no more than 3 pages, plus costs outline and any offers to settle, within 20 days of the release of this Decision. The Applicant may file responding submissions on the same terms within a further 15 days. Costs submissions should be uploaded to Case Center and forwarded to my Judicial Assistant at Robyn.Pope@Ontario.ca.
Justice R.E. Charney
Released: June 30, 2026