“The Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3. (2nd Supp.) governs foreign divorces in the following prescribed manner:
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.
Recognition of foreign divorce
(2) A divorce granted after July 1, 1968 by a competent authority, on the basis of the domicile of the wife in the country or subdivision of the competent authority, determined as if she were unmarried and, if she was a minor, as if she had attained the age of majority, shall be recognized for the purpose of determining the marital status in Canada of any person.
Other recognition rules preserved
(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
Faezeh and Alireza were not habitually resident in Iran for the year immediately preceding the commencement of divorce proceedings, and the divorce was not granted on the basis of Faezeh’s domicile of the granting authority. Accordingly, the question of whether the divorce was valid falls to be determined under s. 22(3). Here, the common law creates a presumption that a foreign divorce is valid.
Under subsection (3), the courts will recognize a foreign divorce in the following circumstances:
a) where the jurisdiction was assumed on the basis of the domicile of the spouses;
b) where the foreign divorce, though granted on a non-domiciliary jurisdictional basis, is recognized by the law of the domicile of the parties;
c) where the foreign jurisdictional rule corresponds to the Canadian jurisdictional rule in divorce proceedings;
d) where the circumstances of the foreign jurisdiction would have conferred jurisdiction on a Canadian court had they occurred in Canada;
e) where the petitioner or Respondent had a real and substantial connection with the foreign jurisdiction wherein the divorce was granted, or
f) where the foreign divorce is recognized in another foreign jurisdiction with which the petition or Respondent has a real and substantial connection.
Al Sabki v. Al Jajeh, 2019 ONSC 6394, 148 O.R. (3d) 741, at para. 14.
In Beals v. Saldanha, 2003 SCC 72, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416, at para. 32, the Supreme Court of Canada discussed the concept of a real and substantial connection to the granting jurisdiction:
The “real and substantial connection” test requires that a significant connection exist between the cause of action and the foreign court. Furthermore, a defendant can reasonably be brought within the embrace of a foreign jurisdiction’s law where he or she has participated in something of significance or was actively involved in that foreign jurisdiction. A fleeting or relatively unimportant connection will not be enough to give a foreign court jurisdiction. The connection to the foreign jurisdiction must be a substantial one.”