2011 QCCA 222, 2011 QCCA 222
Opinion
Droit de la famille — 11233 2011 QCCA 222 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-021152-103 ( 500-12-300049-099 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: February 3, 2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE, J.A. LORNE GIROUX, J.A. NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A. APPELLANT(
S) ATTORNEY(
S) R. I. Mtre France Marchetti ALLARD ET ASSOCIÉS RESPONDENT(
S) ATTORNEY(
S) A. S. PERSONALLY ATTORNEY(
S) On appeal from a judgment rendered on October 5, 2010 by the Honourable Madam Justice Danielle Richer of the Superior Court district of Montreal NATURE OF THE APPEAL : MOTION OF DIVORCE Clerk: MARC LEBLANC Court Room: PIERRE-BASILE-MIGNAULT HEARING 10 h 00 Beginning of the hearing. 10 h 00 Remarks from the Court. 10 h 01 Argument of Mtre Marchetti. 10 h 05 Remarks from the Court. 10 h 08 Argument from Mr. S.. 10 h 17 No reply. 10 h 17 Suspension of the hearing. 10 h 36 Resumption of the hearing. Judgment rendered – see page 3. 10 h 40 The hearing is concluded. Marc Leblanc Clerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT
[ 1 ] This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, district of Montreal (the honourable Danielle Richer), rendered from the bench on the 5 th of October, 2010 and which dismissed the appellant's motion to institute proceedings in divorce. [ 2 ] The hearing in the Superior Court lasted only a few minutes and took place in the presence of the appellant assisted by an articling law student, but in the absence of the respondent who was not represented by counsel. [ 3 ] While the minutes of the hearing record only one conclusion (“La requête est rayée”), it is apparent from the official transcript of the hearing that the judge considered the motion to be without merit.
The relevant portion of the transcript ends as follows: Alors au procès-verbal on indique : Vu qu’un jugement de divorce a été rendu en Syrie et [déposé] le 17 décembre 2008, le tribunal est d’avis que la présente requête en divorce est sans fondement puisque le mariage a déjà été dissout par divorce depuis 2008 en Syrie. Vous indiquerez au procès-verbal que le tribunal a pris connaissance du jugement de divorce et en conserve copie, l’original étant remis à la
partie demanderesse. [ 4 ] The appellant now submits that she did not have the opportunity to testify in support of an allegation made in her motion, according to which a judgment of divorce already rendered in Syria is not susceptible of recognition in Quebec. She contends this is because neither of the parties had resided in Syria for 12 months prior to the commencement of the proceedings. Indeed, the Divorce Act [1] provides in
section 22 : 22.
(1) Un divorce prononcé à compter de l’entrée en vigueur de la présente loi, conformément à la loi d’un pays étranger ou d’une de ses subdivisions, par un tribunal ou une autre autorité compétente est reconnu aux fins de déterminer l’état matrimonial au Canada d’une per- sonne donnée, à condition que l’un des ex-époux ait résidé habituelle- ment dans ce pays ou cette subdivision pendant au moins l’année précédant l’introduction de l’instance. 22.
(1) A divorce granted, on or after the coming into force of this Act, pursuant to a law of a country or subdivision of a country other than Canada by a tribunal or other authority having jurisdiction to do so shall be recognized for all purposes of determining the marital status in Canada of any person, if either former spouse was ordinarily resident in that country or subdivision for at least one year immediately preceding the commen- cement of proceedings for the divorce. […] […]
(3) Le présent
article n’a pas pour effet de porter atteinte aux autres règles de droit relatives à la recon- naissance des divorces dont le prononcé ne découle pas de l’application de la présente loi.
(3) Nothing in this
section abrogates or derogates from any other rule of law respecting the recognition of divorces granted otherwise than under this Act. [ 5 ] Unassisted by counsel before this Court, the respondent, Mr. S., pleads in support of the judgment and argues that the divorce pronounced in Syria should have been recognized by the Superior Court. [ 6 ] There is plainly a subject matter for debate as to the effect of the judgment pronounced in Syria by reason, in particular, of the rules of recognition of foreign judgments that may be applicable to the present case. [ 7 ] This debate has not taken place to date.
It is therefore appropriate to reverse the judgment appealed from and to return the file to the Superior Court so that the parties may be heard on this question as well as upon the action for divorce should it proceed on the merits. [ 8 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 9 ] ALLOWS the appeal; [ 10 ] REVERSES the judgment of the Superior Court; [ 11 ] RETURNS the file to the Superior Court in order for the parties to be heard on the motion; [ 12 ] WITHOUT COSTS, in this Court or in the Superior Court. YVES-MARIE MORISSETTE, J.A.
LORNE GIROUX, J.A. NICHOLAS KASIRER, J.A.
Loading document…