Azam v. Jan, 2013 ABQB 301

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Azam v. Jan, 2013 ABQB 301 Date: 20130516 Docket: 4801 146354 Registry: Calgary Between: Saiqa Azam Plaintiff - and - Saadullah Jan Defendant _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Madam Justice M.C. Erb _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Acknowledging that polygamy is legally recognized in her native Pakistan but not in Canada, Saiqa Azam seeks a judgment for divorce from Saadullah Jan to whom she was married as an additional wife in November, 2007. Mr.

Jan seeks two things: a declaration that the marriage to Ms. Azam is void ab initio in Canada and an annulment. He relies on his own polygamy and pre-nuptial domicile in support of such declaration. [ 2 ] Last year, the Alberta Court of Appeal directed this matter for re-trial citing conflicts in the evidence proffered by the parties, irreconcilable pleadings and procedural issues, all of which needed to be resolved: Azam v Jan , 2012 ABCA 197 , 533 AR 173. The pleadings have since been amended and the parties both testified and provided documentary evidence in this new proceeding.

[ 3 ] The issue here is not only how this union can be legally dissolved, but whether an Alberta court has the jurisdiction to do anything at all. [ 4 ] One of the reasons the Court of Appeal directed this matter to trial was because certain key facts, Mr. Jan’s pre- nuptial domicile and marital status on November 24, 2007, were in dispute. Ms. Azam has held Mr. Jan to his burden of proving he was previously married by pleading Mr. Jan’s marital status as “unknown”. She argues that he was divorced when he married her and produced a Pakistani national identity card to the officiant at the time. Mr.

Jan says otherwise and points to his ongoing marriage to Nazeera Naz in 2000, the mother of his three children, who apparently has little, if any, knowledge of this dispute. [ 5 ] Central to resolving the factual issues is Mr. Jan’s history with both Nazeera Naz and Saiza Azam and the circumstances which led to the present dispute. Marital Status and Domicile of the Parties [ 6 ] The parties met on-line in 2002 after Ms. Azam spotted Mr. Jan’s posting on a marriage website which he says he had set up some time in 1999. Mr. Jan asserts that by 2002 he was already married to Nazeera Naz and was residing in Canada.

Ms. Azam was living in Pakistan. [ 7 ] Mr. Jan was born in Pakistan but left there in his early 20s to pursue educational opportunities elsewhere. He acquired a law degree in the United Kingdom and ultimately settled in Calgary where he was admitted to the Law Society of Alberta on June 1, 2000. He asserts that he was married to Ms. Naz on April 29, 2000, and sponsored her immigration to Canada as his wife. She arrived in Calgary about one year later and was granted permanent resident status. There is no evidence that either Mr. Jan or Ms. Naz were ineligible to marry in April 2000. [ 8 ] Mr.

Jan produced a certificate of marriage between himself and Ms. Naz, issued by the government of Pakistan and it was entered in evidence. The document records those present, the name of the officiant, the place and the date of the union. This certificate of marriage was not disputed. [ 9 ] There is evidence that Mr. Jan and Ms. Naz held themselves out in the community as a married couple. They resided in a home together in Calgary and by the time Mr. Jan was communicating with Ms. Azam about their relationship, his first child, a daughter, had been born. There is no evidence that Mr. Jan and Ms.

Naz were ever divorced. They have since had two more children and continue to reside in Calgary together. [ 10 ] In further support of his position that he was and remains married to Ms. Naz, Mr. Jan produced his Canadian tax returns filed annually each year since the tax year following his marriage to Ms. Naz, in which he declared his marital status as “married”. [ 11 ] Ms. Azam is a PhD candidate in the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Education and a part-timer lecturer. Ms. Azam went through a form of marriage to Mr. Jan in Pakistan on November 24, 2007.

This marriage was also registered with the Pakistani government. [ 12 ] Mr. Jan also sponsored Ms. Azam’s immigration to Canada but not as a spouse, presumably because he was already on record sponsoring Ms. Naz in that capacity. Ms. Azam was granted a student visa for her attendance at the University of Calgary. [ 13 ] Although she was visiting her family in Pakistan when Mr. Jan and Ms. Azam had their wedding, there was no evidence that Ms. Naz was aware of this ceremony either at the time it took place or since. In fact, Mr. Jan testified that he did not tell Ms. Naz about it.

She was not called to testify in these proceedings. It is not disputed that Ms. Naz remained in Pakistan for several weeks beyond her annual family visit, due to the health status of one of her parents.

[ 14 ] While Ms. Naz remained in Pakistan, Ms. Azam and Mr. Jan travelled to Calgary on November 27, three days after their wedding. Initially they stayed in the home which Mr. Jan shared and continues to share with Ms. Naz. However, Ms. Azam moved to an apartment shortly before Ms. Naz’s return in the spring of 2008. By that time, Ms. Azam was pregnant with Mr. Jan’s child but sadly the baby died shortly after birth in July, 2008. The relationship between Ms. Azam and Mr. Jan had broken down by that time and Ms. Azam severed the relationship thereafter. [ 15 ] Ms.

Azam’s own evidence suggests that she was aware an apartment was to be found for her near the university and this may have been the plan when she arrived in Calgary. She came into Canada on a student visa sponsored by Mr. Jan. There was no evidence that she inquired into why she was not being sponsored as Mr. Jan’s wife for immigration purposes. [ 16 ] Ms. Azam testified that she believed Mr. Jan to have been divorced prior to their wedding and that he had made this representation to her on a number of prior occasions. At the time of the wedding, family members handled the details of the ceremony and Mr.

Jan concedes that nothing was said to the officiant, as far as he was aware, of the existence of his prior marriage. He stated that he did not volunteer the information either. Ms. Azam asserts her belief that Mr. Jan was divorced at the time of their marriage. If this was so, Mr. Jan’s email in October 2007, should have appeared puzzling to her to the extent of prompting a follow up of some sort: “U know that I already have a wife and a daughter so your decision must be of compromise”. Previous emails between the two also raised the issue of Mr. Jan’s marriage to Ms. Naz and the issue of divorce.

There were discussions about Mr. Jan stating he did not want to leave his wife and daughter. [ 17 ] I do not accept Ms. Azam’s evidence that she thought she was marrying a divorced man in 2007. She is an educated, well- spoken, confident woman having spent time in western countries such as the United States and Australia where she took a master’s degree in education. In any event, Ms. Azam has acknowledged that her marriage to Mr. Jan was at the very least, a legal polygamist marriage under Pakistani law. [ 18 ] Three days after his marriage to Ms. Azam, Mr. Jan returned to Calgary taking Ms. Azam with him.

I find that he was returning to Calgary because he had a home, law practise and a life here. [ 19 ] It is clear from the evidence that Calgary was and continues to be Mr. Jan’s place of residence on November 24, 2007, the day of the wedding between the parties. I also find that at that time, Mr. Jan was married to and continues to be married to Ms. Naz. [ 20 ] On the issue of domicile, Mr. Jan presented his Pakistani national identity card to the officiant at the time of his marriage to Ms. Azam.

However, although he visited Pakistan regularly over the years since he left in 2000, at the time of his marriage to Ms. Azam he resided in Calgary, owned property here, was living with his wife here, raising his daughter and working in a profession which has specific licensing requirements. After his union with Ms. Azam, he left Pakistan for Calgary taking Ms. Azam with him which is also evidence that he intended to maintain his Canadian place of residence. There was no evidence that he has personal and professional ties to anywhere in Pakistan. [ 21 ] I am satisfied on the evidence, that Mr.

Jan transferred his residence to Canada during or before 2000 and brought his wife here after he acquired permanent residency status for her. After she arrived in May 2001, Mr. Jan and Ms. Naz set up a monogamous household in Calgary which has continued up to and including the present. That marriage has never been dissolved. [ 22 ] These findings resolve the factual question of Mr. Jan’s previous marital status when he married Ms. Azam as required by the Court of Appeal in Azam at paragraph 13 as well as the issue about his residence at the relevant time, that is – November 24, 2007. Mr.

Jan resided in Calgary, Alberta, Canada and he intended to continue living here. [ 23 ] These findings also preclude Ms. Azam from arguing that her marriage to Mr. Jan in 2007 was a valid potentially polygamous but actually monogamous marriage. This places Ms. Azam’s marriage to Mr. Jan in the category of an actual polygamous marriage. [ 24 ] The next consideration for this Court is where these findings of fact take the issue of dissolution of the marriage between the parties.

Jurisdiction over Foreign Polygamous Marriages [25] The first question is whether this court has jurisdiction or, alternatively, can take jurisdiction over a foreign polygamousmarriage for the purpose of dissolution. [26] The template for Canadian law on jurisdiction in such circumstances is a decision of the English courts in Hyde v Hyde andWoodmansee (1866), LR 1 P & D 130, [1861-73] All ER Rep 175.

In Hyde, the Court denied an application for an annulment becausethe polygamous marriage in question was fundamentally incompatible with English law and its understanding of marriage based onChristian principles, concluding it was not open to the Court to acknowledge it by taking jurisdiction. Hyde has been applied in Canadaas authority for declining jurisdiction over all foreign polygamous marriages for the purpose of annulment and divorce: Lim v Lim, (BC SC), [1948] 2 DLR 353, 1 WWR 298 (BC SC); Yew v Attorney-General of British Columbia (1923), (BC CA), 33 BCR 109, [1924] 1 DLR 1166 (CA).

If followed strictly, Hyde means that any marriage conducted in Pakistan, even onethat remains actually monogamous, is potentially polygamous in Canadian law, and a Court is therefore barred from granting any relief. [27] However, in Re Hassan and Hassan (1976), (ON SC), 12 OR (2d) 432, 28 RFL 121 (H Ct J), the court heldthat a potentially polygamous marriage could be converted into a recognized monogamous marriage if the parties actually livedmonogamously and changed their domicile to a country where polygamy is outlawed.

As support for this principle, the Court in Hassancited Sara v Sara (1962), (BC SC), 31 DLR (2d) 566, 38 WWR 143 (BC SC) (varied on other grounds by (1962), (BC CA), 36 DLR (2d) 499, 40 WWR 257 (BC CA)), in which a potentially polygamous marriage between nationals ofIndia was converted to a monogamous one either by virtue of having changed their domicile to Canada or the subsequent banning ofpolygamy under local Indian law. [28] The evidence in this case does not support this option. There is no evidence that Mr. Jan and Ms. Azam lived in amonogamous relationship once they arrived in Calgary. Mr.

Jan remained in his marriage to Ms. Naz and continued to reside there withher and his child as a family upon her return from her trip to Pakistan. Ms. Azam was relegated to a small apartment near the universityand there is no evidence that Mr. Jan resided with her there. [29] There are few other helpful decisions from Canadian courts on this issue.

However, it is useful to review the cases which atleast touch on the issues. [30] In Peters v Murray, [2006] OJ No 4871, 153 ACWS (3d) 913 (CA), the Court declared a marriage invalid and annulled it onthe basis that the husband lacked capacity because he was already married. Although the Court stated that the second marriage had beenentered into for immigration purposes little else is addressed in this brief decision.

Little information on the facts was provided and it isnot clear where the marriage was performed and whether it was a valid union on some basis. [31] In Feiner v Demkowicz (falsely called Feiner) (1973), (ON SC), 2 OR (2d) 121, 42 DLR (3d) 165 (H Ct J),the Court granted an annulment of a marriage effected in Poland but the issue involved capacity for a first marriage from a jurisdictionwhere polygamy was illegal. [32] In Grewal v Kaur, 2011 ONSC 1812, 94 RFL (6th) 322, the Court took jurisdiction over a marriage made in India based onone party’s current Canadian domicile.

However, the issues were not incompatible with Canadian law as described in Hyde. [33] In Bolentiru v Radulescu, (ON SC), [2004] OTC 698, 10 RFL (6th) 258 (SC), the Court found it had thejurisdiction to annul a Romanian marriage and did so. The grounds for annulment were that Romanian law required evidence of thetermination of husband’s prior marriage. The husband had not and could not provide such evidence because on the day of the Romanianmarriage the divorce of his first wife had not yet been finalized. However, this case involved a question of formal validity under ajurisdiction where polygamy was illegal.

In this case and in Grewal, the question of taking jurisdiction over a form of marriagefundamentally incompatible with Canadian law was not at issue. [34] Urging this court to take jurisdiction, counsel for Ms. Azam cites a very recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court: Hincks

[ 34 ] Urging this court to take jurisdiction, counsel for Ms. Azam cites a very recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court: Hincks v Gallardo , 2013 ONSC 129 , 113 OR (3d) 654. In Hincks , the Court considered the status of a British same-sex civil union under Canadian law in which same-sex marriage is permitted. In accepting the Attorney General of Ontario’s reciprocity approach, the court stressed that British same-sex civil unions were the functional equivalent to Canadian same-sex marriages: Hincks at para 41 .

The Attorney General of Canada argued that since a British same-sex civil union is not a marriage in Britain, it cannot be treated as a marriage in Canada. At paragraph 40 of Hincks , the court considered the inverse logic of Canada’s position and concluded it would mean Britain should recognize Canadian same-sex marriages as full British marriages.

If applied here, Canada’s position would mean that valid foreign polygamous marriages should be recognized in Canada as valid Canadian polygamous marriages. [ 35 ] However, both arguments fail their usefulness here because unlike the British same sex marriage situation, there is no functional equivalent to a polygamous marriage in Canada – such marriages are not legal. The emphasis is on what is legally acceptable in Canada. The list does not include polygamy. [ 36 ] Support contrary to the strict approach of Hyde appears elsewhere.

In Martha Bailey et al, “Expanding Recognition of Foreign Polygamous Marriages: Policy Implications for Canada”, in Polygamy in Canada: Legal and Social Implications for Women and Children: A Collection of Policy and Research Reports (Ottawa: Status of Women Canada, 2005) at 11-12, the authors suggest that the women of foreign polygamous marriages are likely to suffer if the remedies of divorce and annulment are not available to them.

In the opinion of the authors the definition of “spouse” under the Divorce Act , RSC 1985, c 3 (2d Supp), precludes its application to valid foreign polygamous marriages (“spouse” means either of two persons who are married to each other: Divorce Act , s 2(1)). Amy Kaufman agrees with this restrictive

interpretation of “spouse” in the Divorce Act : “Polygamous Marriages in Canada” (2005) 21 Can J Fam L 315 at 333. [ 37 ] The Alberta Court of Appeal (per Bielby J.A.) had this to say in Azam at paragraph 18 : [...] Although not directly relevant to the issues in this case, I note that, if the parties were both domiciled and married in the foreign jurisdiction, the conflict of law rules would seem to recognize the marriage for some purposes.

If such a marriage is recognized as being valid in this fashion under the conflicts of laws rules, and the parties subsequently become resident of Alberta for over one year, why should the Alberta courts not divorce the parties? The Alberta courts clearly have jurisdiction to terminate foreign (monogamous) marriages, so why should they not be able to terminate all valid foreign marriages if the parties otherwise meet the Canadian residential and other prerequisites to divorce? [ 38 ] Additionally, Bielby J.A. disagreed with both Bailey et al and Kaufman on their

interpretation of the Divorce Act , at paragraph 20 of Azam : [...] The definition of “spouse” in s. 2(1) of the Divorce Act [...] arguably does not compel the conclusion that polygamous marriages are not recognized. It may merely indicate that the two (and only two) parties to this litigation must be the parties to this marriage, even though one of them may also be a party to another marriage.

The Civil Marriage Act , SC 2005, c 33, s 2 defines “marriage” for the purposes of Canadian law but that definition arguably does not foreclose polygamous marriages celebrated in a jurisdiction where polygamy is legal. [ 39 ] Although obiter , paragraphs 18-24 of Azam constitute a compelling argument that the state of the law in relation to actually polygamous marriage has evolved since Hyde , through adaptations in family law legislation and such decisions as Reference re Same- Sex Marriage , 2004 SCC 79 , [2004] 3 SCR 698.

In fact, I take the Alberta Court of Appeal’s obiter statements as an indication that the law needs to continue to evolve. [ 40 ] It is worthy of note that a foreign polygamous marriage was recognized as valid in Radwan v Radwan (No 2) (1972), [1973] Fam 35, [1972] 3 All ER 1026 . In this English decision, the Court applied the intended matrimonial home doctrine and found that a woman, domiciled in England at the time of her marriage, had capacity to enter into a polygamous marriage under the laws of Egypt because the intended matrimonial home was in Egypt.

When the couple later moved back to England and filed for divorce, the Court pronounced the foreign polygamous marriage valid. The English court did not hold itself bound by the Hyde precedent: Radwan at 48. There is no indication that the Court took jurisdiction in granting the divorce beyond this simple declaration of validity. [ 41 ] Kaufman sets out the traditional arguments against taking jurisdiction to grant a divorce or an annulment of a valid foreign polygamous marriage on public policy grounds, notably the “demeaning” impact polygamous marriages have on women’s equality: at 331-333.

One would have thought that denying any remedy for such marriages found to have been legally made in a foreign jurisdiction

would be equally problematic from a public policy perspective and just as demeaning to women’s equality. [ 42 ] Lim remains the Canadian precedent for application of Hyde . In the absence of any compelling contrary precedent, the question is whether or not to apply Hyde .

Bielby J.A.’s comments in Azam , at paragraph 24 , offer additional support for moving away from the Hyde approach: [...] even if the courts cannot terminate ( i.e. by divorce) such a marriage, it is difficult to understand why a Canadian court should not be able to grant a declaration that an actively polygamous marriage is not recognized under Canadian law, including a declaration that it is a nullity here (if that were the law). There is no apparent reason why the Alberta court’s wide jurisdiction to grant declarations does not extend to this topic: see discussion in Sara .

Whether cases like Hyde and Risk (otherwise Yerburgh) v Risk, [1950] 2 All ER 973 should continue to reflect the law of Canada is very much an open issue. [ 43 ] Beilby J.A. appears to take the view that if this marriage is a valid foreign polygamous marriage, it could be dissolved by divorce and if it is not, it could be dissolved by a declaration that it is void ab inito and annulled. [ 44 ] I find that in all the circumstances, and in the interests of public policy, this Court should take jurisdiction over valid and invalid foreign polygamous marriages.

The Hyde decision of 1866, is outdated and no longer reflects Canadian realities. In the 147 years since Hyde , Canada has become a very different place. At the time Hyde was decided, Canada had not yet even reached nationhood. Today’s Canada is a proud cultural mosaic and the law should provide remedies where possible to meet the needs of all Canadians including both citizen and permanent resident. To fail to do so would leave parties without recourse and it would invariably exclude immigrant families from rights accorded other Canadians when marriages, however forged, break down.

Recognition of Foreign Marriages [ 45 ] The parties in these proceedings do not dispute that the Azam/Jan union is legally recognized in Pakistan as a polygamist marriage. Ms. Azam asks this Court to dissolve her marriage to Mr. Jan by granting a judgment for divorce. To do so, the marriage must be recognized as valid in accordance with Canadian conflict of law rules. A general overview of the treatment of foreign law in Canada follows. [ 46 ] Until proven otherwise, foreign law is presumed to be the same as the lex fori , or law of the forum; in this case Canadian law.

This was confirmed in the context of marriage laws in Feiner (p. 125) in which it was held that in the absence of evidence as to the marriage laws of Poland, they were presumed to be the same as Canadian marriage laws. [ 47 ] If a party seeks to prove that foreign law is different from Canadian it must be “specifically pleaded by the party relying upon it, and [...] must be proved to the satisfaction of the court”: Castel and Walker, Canadian Conflict of Laws , 6th ed (Markham, ON: LexisNexis, 2005), ch 7 at 7-1.

In Grewal , the party seeking to rely on fraud as grounds for annulment under Indian law proffered experts in the law of India to assist the court: at para 65. [ 48 ] Neither party to these proceedings called expert evidence and counsel agreed on the Court record that this marriage, even if polygamist, was legal under Pakistani law. To grant a judgment for divorce, the marriage must be proven here, that is, it must be proven valid under Canadian law conflict of law rules.

However, formal proof may not always be required: Castel and Walker at 7-6: A Canadian court may dispense with the formal requirement for proof of foreign law where the parties consent, particularly where the time and expense in providing expert evidence are not warranted in assisting the court to interpret the foreign statutes or authorities proffered.

However, the court’s willingness to dispense with formal proof will be diminished with the extent to which the determination of the effect of the foreign law requires it to speculate on the application of the foreign statutes and principles to the particular facts in question. [ 49 ] In Azam at para. 18 , Justice Bielby cites with approval Kaufman’s

summary of Canada’s conflict of law rules governing the recognition of foreign marriages (pp. 320-321):

[...] The traditional conflict of laws approach to recognition of foreign marriages in Canada has two distinct aspects: the marriage mustbe both formally and essentially valid. To be formally valid, the formalities of the marriage must have conformed to the lex locicelebrationis, the law of the place of the marriage.

To be essentially valid, each party must have had the capacity to marry under the lawof his or her pre-nuptial domicile.(emphasis added) [50] To assess the capacity of parties to marry as required for “essential validity”, the Court must consider the “dual domiciledoctrine” and the “intended matrimonial home doctrine”. [51] The dual domicile doctrine requires each party to have capacity to marry in the country in which they were domiciled at thepoint of marriage. Domicile is generally either a “domicile of origin” or a “domicile of choice”.

A domicile of origin is determined atbirth based on the domicile of those upon whom a child is legally dependent: Castel and Walker at 4-4. A domicile of origin may bealtered by a domicile of choice if the conditions of taking up residence in another country (propositus) and intending to reside thereindefinitely (animus manendi) are met: Castel and Walker at 4-4.

However, only one domicile can exist at a time: Castel and Walker at4-3. [52] The “intended matrimonial home doctrine” recognizes the community in which the parties plan to live together as husbandand wife as the one primarily interested in the validity of their marriage: Castel and Walker at 16-8.

All that is required is proof of anintention to make a certain country the matrimonial home; the frustration of this intended residency is not necessarily an impediment:Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v Narwal, (FCA), [1990] 2 FC 385 at 390-391, 26 RFL (3d) 95(CA). [53] It is clear from the caselaw, that the preferred approach in Canada is the “dual domicile doctrine”: Grewal at para. 12; Feinerat pp. 126-127. Accordingly, I find that the dual domicile test is the appropriate test to apply in this case.

Further, under Canadianconflict of law rules, “formal validity” in this case need not be considered because the issue of recognizing this foreign marriage as validin Canada is appropriately resolved by the application of “essential validity”, including the question of Mr. Jan’s capacity. Conclusion [54] Under Canadian conflict of law rules, “essential validity” is the determining factor in determining whether this polygamistmarriage is valid. [55] No issue has been raised about Ms. Azam’s domicile at the time she married Mr. Jan; it was clearly Pakistan.

Under the dualdomicile doctrine and presuming Canadian law to be the same as Pakistani law, as a never previously married woman, Ms. Azam hadcapacity to enter her marriage to Mr. Jan on November 24, 2007. [56] However, since Mr. Jan was clearly resident in Calgary and intended to remain here on November 24, 2007, his pre-nuptialdomicile was certainly Canada, not Pakistan. Accordingly, Mr. Jan lacked the legal capacity for his 2007 marriage by virtue of hisprevious subsisting marriage.

Polygamy is illegal in Canada. [57] I add the following speculative comments on the status of the marriage under Pakistani law only as obiter. If his first wife’sconsent was required for the second marriage to take place, as was obliquely referenced during the trial, it is possible that both formaland essential validity fail under the requirements of Pakistani law. There is no evidence that Ms. Naz was aware of the ceremony andmost certainly was not asked for her consent.

With testimony casting doubt on the legality of the marriage in Pakistan, this Court is notsatisfied as to the effect of foreign law on the proceedings. Under Canadian conflict of law rules this would require expert evidenceproving the effect of Pakistani law. No such evidence was called. The concurrence of counsel that this marriage is a legal Pakistanimarriage is not sufficient. [58] The only thing known with any certainty is that the Azam/Jan marriage is not recognized as valid under Canadian conflict oflaw rules because polygamy is not legal in Canada.

Recognition of this foreign marriage cannot be forthcoming because Ms. Azamcannot prove the “essential validity” of it. She seeks a divorce judgment and since the marriage cannot be proven to the satisfaction ofthis Court, her application must fail. However, there is one other certainty in these proceedings; this marriage is also a nullity under

Canadian law. [ 59 ] Accordingly, in consideration of all of the foregoing, I take jurisdiction on public policy grounds. I acknowledge this marriage for the limited purpose of providing an adequate remedy having been satisfied that whatever its foreign legality, it is invalid in Canada. The fact that this union has broken down leaving the parties in legal limbo, is not in dispute. [ 60 ] Accordingly, Ms. Azam’s request for a judgment for divorce is dismissed. I declare the marriage been Ms. Azam and Mr. Jan to be void ab initio and grant an order of annulment.

Heard on the 2 nd day of April, 2013 and the 3 rd day of April, 2013. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 16 th day of May, 2013. M.C. Erb J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Ruellen Forsyth-Nicholson for the Plaintiff Khatera Haidery for the Defendant