CITATION: Pospelova v. Pospelov, 2026 ONSC 4368
COURT FILE NO.: FS-25-00050766-0000
DATE: 20260729
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: OLGA POSPELOVA, Applicant
AND:
ALEKSANDR POSPELOV, Respondent
BEFORE: JUSTICE K. SAH
COUNSEL: Both Parties Self Represented
HEARD: July 23, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
Overview
[1] The Applicant brings a motion seeking a declaration that a Russian divorce, allegedly obtained by the Respondent after attorning to the jurisdiction of Ontario, not be recognized in Ontario. In addition, she seeks to sever the divorce claim brought in the Ontario court from the corollary relief set out in her Application.
[2] The Respondent requests that the motion be dismissed and that the Russian divorce be recognized as valid.
[3] At the start of the motion, I advised the parties that this court would not determine the validity of a Russian divorce on an interim motion based on untested affidavit evidence. The issue of whether the Russian divorce is valid is a triable issue that would result in a final order only after consideration of a complete evidentiary record, including the testing of all evidence.
[4] Therefore, the only issue to be determined on this motion is whether the divorce claim in Ontario should be severed from the corollary issues.
Legal Principles
[5] Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules provides that 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.
[6] Rules 2(2) and 2(3) state that the primary objective of the Family Law Rules is to enable the court to deal with cases justly.
[7] Section 8(2)(a) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), provides that the court may grant a divorce where the spouses have lived separate and apart for at least one year. Section 11(1)(b) of the Divorce Act permits the court to stay the grating of a divorce until such time as it is satisfied that reasonable arrangements have been made for the support of any children of the marriage.
[8] I have summarized the extensive review of case law set out in Hicks v. Gazley, 2020 ABQB 525, and below are factors supporting severance [citations omitted]:
a) where the only objection was outstanding custody and access issues, and those issues had, in fact, been addressed by court order;
b) where the asserted legal disadvantage arising from a potential spousal support claim was unfounded in light of a separation agreement that waived such support;
c) where the asserted prejudice to a spouse through the loss of benefits coverage upon divorce was not recognized because a separation agreement obliged the benefit-carrying spouse to continue benefits only "for so long as they are available to her for his benefit", and there was no indirect duty to refrain from pursuing a divorce;
d) where the asserted prejudice relating to child support (loss of benefit coverage) was groundless in light of a consent order requiring the benefit-carrying spouse to maintain coverage for the child;
e) where the spouse opposing severance would no longer, following severance and divorce, be covered under the Applicant's health benefits, but the coverage had already been lost and that spouse was able to obtain her own coverage;
f) where the alleged legal disadvantage was that, upon the death of the spouse seeking severance, the other party would lose certain rights available to a spouse under succession legislation; however, the court found no such disadvantage, given that the support obligations were partially secured by life insurance beneficiary designations, there was no evidence that an intestacy was likely to occur, equalization rights were preserved by statute, and other legislation permitted support claims by a divorced spouse;
g) where the spouse seeking severance "has a fiancée overseas whom he wishes to marry and bring to Canada";
h) where equalization claims can be determined regardless of whether the divorce is severed from the corollary relief, and the only objection to severance was that other relief remained outstanding; in this context, "disadvantage" means a legal disadvantage and not the loss of leverage with respect to other unresolved issues;
i) where severance will not negatively affect either of the parties and there is no other potential unfairness that may arise;
j) where there is no legal basis to deny a divorce simply on the basis that the matrimonial property action remains unresolved;
k) where the spouse opposing severance was "fearful that if the husband gets the divorce he wants now, he will delay the balance of the proceedings;
l) where the asserted prejudice concerned the impact on the opposing spouse's rights (property claims) in another jurisdiction, but evidence of such rights was lacking;
m) where the spouse seeking severance wished to remarry after a separation of more than a decade, there were limited issues and specific assets in dispute, and a short runway to trial; and
n) where granting severance would not disrupt ongoing case management efforts.
[9] The court in Hicks also reviewed factors supporting no severance, which are summarized below [citations omitted]:
a) where it is preferable if all matters [divorce and corollary relief] proceed at one time;
b) no urgent need for severance;
c) no compelling evidence suggesting severance would be advantageous;
d) the party seeking severance's possible departure from the jurisdiction would make enforcement of any subsequent spousal support order difficult;
e) a divorce might impede one spouse’s claims for relief in another jurisdiction;
f) the party seeking severance is non-compliant with disclosure orders; severing his claim for divorce could potentially prejudice a claim the other spouse might have against the moving party’s estate in the event of insolvency;
g) the party seeking severance providing insufficient disclosure rendering it not possible to determine if the other party will suffer no prejudice;
h) if the party seeking severance is more likely to continue their past failure to comply with disclosure obligations if severance is granted;
i) if the party seeking severance failed to disclose pension-plan details;
j) there is no evidence that the non-requesting party is prolonging the matrimonial litigation;
k) a severance of a divorce claim from corollary relief issues may be denied on the basis of prejudice or disadvantage to the other spouse where that spouse would lose the benefit of medical insurance;
l) there is not enough reliable, undisputed evidence before the court to determine what amount of child support should be paid and/or unfulfilled requests for undertakings and disclosure by the responding party;
m) severing would make it more difficult and more expensive for the other spouse to maintain claims for spousal relief because of the party seeking severance’s departure
n) there is risk of financial prejudice outweighing prejudice to the party seeking severance from postponement of a proposed wedding;
o) severance and resulting divorce would eliminate the party seeking severance’s incentive to press on with the matrimonial property division and would lead to new spouse support obligations jeopardizing existing spouse’s support;
p) where severance and a resulting divorce might deprive the other spouse of the benefit of medical insurance, particularly where other spouse has chronic health problems and surgery is imminent; and
q) where the sole purpose of seeking severance was to ensure an Ontario divorce before a foreign court deal with the opposing spouse’s request for divorce there.
Summary of Evidence
[10] The parties were married in January 2017 in Georgia.
[11] The parties immigrated together to Ontario in January 2023.
[12] The parties claim different dates of separation. According to the Applicant, they separated on January 1, 2025. The Respondent claims they separated on or about December 1, 2024.
[13] Following the parties' separation, the Respondent moved to Russia, where he continues to reside. The Respondent left Canada on March 14, 2026. The Respondent's parents and his child from a previous relationship reside in Russia. He does not intend to return to Canada.
[14] Two separate proceedings have been commenced, one in Russia and one in Ontario.
Ontario Proceeding
[15] The Applicant commenced her Ontario proceeding on July 18, 2025.
[16] In her Application, the Applicant seeks a divorce, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.
[17] The Respondent served and filed an Answer and Financial Statement in the Ontario proceeding. In his Answer, the Respondent also requests a divorce.
Russian Proceeding
[18] The Respondent commenced a proceeding in Russia on or about June 22, 2025, notably before the Applicant filed her Application in Ontario.
[19] The Applicant alleges that this Russian proceeding continued in July 2025 and was dismissed in August 2025 after the court ruled that the application had never been properly constituted or perfected and was therefore considered unfiled. The Applicant further alleges that the Respondent failed to provide her with notice of the claim in Russia.
[20] It is the Respondent's evidence that, in July 2025, the Russian court stayed his claim, requiring him to correct certain filing deficiencies, including providing the marriage certificate, which he alleges the Applicant delayed in providing.
[21] According to the Applicant, the Respondent was given an opportunity by the Russian court to refile his materials by August 7, 2025, but he failed to do so. She claims that his claim was rejected on August 8, 2025.
[22] The Applicant claims that the Respondent filed a new claim in Russia on October 14, 2025, notably after the filing of his Answer in the Ontario proceeding, which was dated September 17, 2025.
[23] According to the Applicant, there is no evidence that the Respondent reconstituted his June proceeding because the Russian court would not accept two claims seeking the same relief. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent commenced a new claim for the dissolution of the marriage in October 2025 after filing his Answer in the Ontario proceeding.
[24] It is the Respondent's evidence that, after he obtained the marriage certificate and filed the required documents, the Russian court accepted the divorce proceeding on October 14, 2025, and scheduled a hearing for November 17, 2025.
[25] The Respondent claims that the October 14, 2025, order did not commence a new matrimonial proceeding but instead continued the same efforts to obtain a divorce that had begun in June 2025.
[26] According to the Respondent, on November 17, 2025, the court "left his claim without consideration" after the Applicant raised the Ontario proceeding.
[27] The Respondent then appealed that ruling and claims that, on April 17, 2026, the court allowed his appeal, set aside the November 17, 2025, ruling, and confirmed that the Russian court had jurisdiction to hear the divorce proceeding. The case was remitted for a decision on its merits.
[28] It is the Respondent's evidence that, on April 29, 2026, the Russian court scheduled a hearing for June 1, 2026, and later set a final hearing date for June 26, 2026.
[29] The Applicant, who was visiting Russia at the time, attended court on June 26, 2026, and presented her position. Ultimately, the Russian court granted the Respondent's claim and ordered that the marriage be dissolved.
[30] The Applicant does not dispute that a divorce order was obtained in Russia.
[31] The Applicant submits that she is in the process of appealing the divorce order in Russia.
Analysis
[32] The parties do not have children, so the precondition of determining if reasonable arrangements for the support of any children of the marriage does not apply.
[33] No evidence was tendered about medical and/or dental benefits and/or entitlement to same.
[34] There is no evidence regarding either party’s wish to remarry.
[35] There are no allegations of delay. The Respondent has already left the jurisdiction and does not intend to return.
[36] The only urgency apparent on the fact of this case was the Applicant’s desire to obtain the Ontario divorce before the Russian divorce was granted. Now that the Russian divorce has been granted, the urgency is debatable.
[37] The Applicant maintains that the Russian divorce precludes her from claiming spousal support which she maintains she is entitled to receive. She claims that this is a significant disadvantage to her and is good reason to sever the divorce.
[38] The status of the Russian appeal is unknown and the timeframe for the appeal to be heard was not shared with the court.
[39] If the Russian appeal is dismissed, the Russian divorce remains in effect, and it is very likely that this court will need to determine the validity of the Russian divorce.
[40] If the Russian divorce is recognized as valid in Ontario, the Applicant claims the Ontario court will have no jurisdiction to grant spousal support, See: Rothgiesser v. Rothgiesser, 2000 CanLII 1153 (ON CA), 2000 128 O.A.C. 302, and Okmyansky v. Okmyansky, 2007 ONCA 427.
[41] However, in is Rasaei v. Bahman, 2025 ONSC 2074, a decision of Finlayson J. addressed what the court is to do when a party is faced with a foreign divorce and is entitled to support.
[42] In that case, the husband obtained a divorce in Bahrain, and the court found the wife had entitlement to spousal support. The court ultimately did not recognize the Bahrain divorce as valid under s. 22 of the Divorce Act and the wife was entitled to receive support. In obiter the court stated that even if the court had found the foreign divorce valid, it could and would have ordered spousal support under the Family Law Act. This persuasive but not binding comment is controversial because it appears to depart from earlier appellate authority.
[43] As noted in Rasaei, there have been several calls for clarifications from the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Specifically, Vyazemskaya v. Safin, 2024 ONCA 156, wherein the court stated the case law may well be ripe for reconsideration and Sonia v. Ratan, 2024 ONCA 152 wherein the court stated the issue could be remedied by legislative reform or jurisprudence could be revisited.
[44] The law in this area is no longer as clear as it once appeared, particularly in cases where entitlement to spousal support would exist but for a foreign divorce.
[45] For now, does this lend itself to a legal disadvantage? And if so, which party is disadvantaged.
[46] If the divorce is severed, it still needs to be granted. The granting of the divorce depends on the outcome of the Russian appeal. It is unclear whether a legal disadvantage exists. On this motion, I am not to determine the substantive issue about the validity of the Russian divorce.
[47] There might be a disadvantage to the Applicant given what I perceive to be unsettled law as set out above. The uncertainty surrounding the legal effect of the Russian divorce creates a risk of legal prejudice to the Applicant. Interestingly, the party seeking severance (here, the Applicant) is the one that risks legal prejudice.
[48] The potential for risk of legal prejudice is, in my view a legal disadvantage. It is not clear if her claims are preserved.
[49] If, on the other hand, the Russian appeal is granted and the Russian divorce is no longer in effect, it gives substance to the Applicant’s request that the Ontario divorce be granted. The Applicant brought her claim for spousal support at the same time as her claim for the divorce. She will be permitted to pursue her claim with no violation of the limitation period. This would result in no legal disadvantage, and a severance would follow.
[50] This, in my view, does not negate the current legal disadvantage.
[51] Further in Bayar-Mestiri v. Mestiri, 2020 ONSC 3620, Faieta J. was not prepared to sever the divorce from the corollary relief where the sole purpose of severing the divorce from the corollary relief was to disadvantage a party to ensure that a divorce is granted in Ontario before a foreign jurisdiction. Likewise, I decline to sever the divorce as the intentions of the Applicant are clear. She submits that she has been trying to sever the divorce to stop the Respondent from proceeding in Russia.
[52] Considering Rule 12(6), I cannot be satisfied that no legal disadvantage would arise. For that reason, I exercise my discretion not to grant a severance of the divorce.
[53] This case, arising in the context of Rule 12(6), is another example of the uncertainty surrounding the legal consequences of foreign divorces and the availability of corollary relief under provincial legislation, highlighting the potential value of legislative clarification.
Costs
[54] The severance issue is a discretionary remedy, where it was clear that one party would be successful.
[55] Both parties made submissions on costs at the conclusion of oral argument.
[56] The Applicant seeks costs, if successful on her full recovery basis in the amount of $7,489.08.
[57] The Respondent seeks costs in the amount of $3,500, inclusive of HST and disbursements and suggests that this amount is appropriate to be ordered owing to the successful party.
[58] Here, the Respondent is the more successful party. However, the court did not approach the issue in the same way as the Respondent and did not rely on his argument that severance is redundant and premature, rather focussing of the legal disadvantage.
[59] I have reviewed all of the material prepared by the parties for this motion and considered the success of the Respondent and the factors set out in Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules. I have considered the fundamental purposes set out in Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867.
[60] I find that a fair, reasonable, and proportionate cost award is $2,000, payable by the Applicant to the Respondent within 60 days.
JUSTICE K. SAH
Date: July 29, 2026