Shahram Sean Bahmadi

This decision addresses whether a person who was formerly married and divorced (including by foreign divorce) can apply for spousal support under Ontario’s Family Law Act.

The court finds that a divorce, whether foreign or domestic, does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to order spousal support under the Family Law Act.

The decision reviews and departs from prior appellate authority, relying on statutory interpretation, legislative purpose, and recent appellate commentary suggesting the law is “ripe for reconsideration.” The court also addresses the alternative basis for support where the parties resumed cohabitation after the foreign divorce.

The applicant, Maria Elena Lao Chan, sought to set aside a 1995 divorce judgment between herself and her now-deceased husband, Wing Sang Chan, on the grounds of mistake and/or fraud.

The court reviewed the lengthy factual and procedural history, including conflicting narratives about the parties' marital status, the authenticity of affidavits, and the involvement of handwriting experts.

Ultimately, the court found insufficient evidence to support Maria's claims of fraud, inadequate child support arrangements, or lack of jurisdiction.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for short-term disability (STD) and long-term disability (LTD) benefits.

Sun Life argued that the STD claim was barred by an out-of-country exclusion in the policy, and the LTD claim was barred by a pre-existing condition exclusion.

The court found that the out-of-country exclusion did not suspend the 26-week maximum STD benefit period, thus denying further STD benefits due to the plaintiff's 16-week absence abroad.

For the LTD claim, the court held that the pre-existing condition exclusion applied, ruling that the severity of the pre-existing condition at the time coverage began was irrelevant, as long as the disability resulted directly or indirectly from it.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing both claims.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) dismissing his claims for income replacement benefits on the basis of res judicata.

The appellant argued that the prior LAT decision only addressed the quantum of benefits, not liability, and that the process was procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LAT correctly applied the four preconditions for res judicata and that a party cannot ignore a final LAT decision to recommence the same claims.

The court also found no procedural unfairness in adjudicating the preliminary issue of res judicata.

The applicant mother brought a summary judgment motion seeking declarations against the respondent father and the Director of Land Titles.

The mother sought declarations that she and the father were spouses, that the Newmarket property was a matrimonial home, and that she was entitled to compensation from the Land Titles Assurance Fund due to a fraudulent mortgage taken by the father.

The court dismissed the claims for declaratory relief against the Director, finding it lacked jurisdiction to determine compensation from the Fund at first instance, as the statutory scheme designates the Director for such determinations, subject to appeal.

The court also found that the mother had not met the summary judgment test for the relationship issues due to conflicting evidence regarding a foreign divorce and separation agreement.

The issue regarding setting aside the TELB mortgage settled.

The applicant brought a motion requesting leave to proceed with an urgent motion for spousal support.

Pursuant to a newly effective Notice to the Profession and Family Law Litigants and Protocol for Central East Region, leave on the basis of urgency was no longer required since a case conference had already been held.

The court dismissed the motion for leave without prejudice, noting it was unnecessary, and directed the applicant to file an Assignment Court Confirmation request to proceed with her intended motion.