Ontario Civil

Conflict of Laws

Factors supported Ontario as more convenient forum

Parties married in 2010 and separated in 2014. Parties were parents of young child who lived with mother in Ontario. Father was professional hockey player and, following marriage, parties lived in Chicago during hockey season and returned to Ontario for summer. Father was traded to Toronto in 2013 and parties moved to Ontario. In 2014 father signed contract with Florida and parties purchased home in Florida. Mother claimed she only lived in Florida home for two weeks before returning with child to Ontario in September 2014. Father brought petition in Florida for dissolution of marriage, division of property, shared custody, and determination of support. Mother brought application in Ontario for divorce, equalization of net family property, custody, and support. Mother brought motion for order that Ontario had jurisdiction to deal with custody, access and divorce; father brought cross-motion to dismiss application on basis that mother had not met 12-month residency requirement prior to issuance of her application. Motion granted; cross-motion dismissed. Mother was ordinarily resident in Ontario from July 2013 when father was traded to Toronto. Ontario was where mother had settled routine of her life, and where she regularly, normally or customarily lived. Child was born in Ontario and had lived there all of her life except for two weeks in September 2014. Ontario had jurisdiction to deal with support and property issues. Factors supported Ontario as more convenient forum for adjudication of claims.

Bolland v. Bolland (July 6, 2016, Ont. S.C.J., Hood J., FS-15-00404715-0000) 268 A.C.W.S. (3d) 815.

Law Times Poll

A group of benchers opposed to the Statement of Principles will need to win the support of their colleagues to repeal the requirement. Do you think they will be successful in repealing the statement of principles in the coming year?