BACKGROUND
The Applicant wife (the “Applicant”) and the Respondent husband (the “Respondent”) had resided in Iran as their last place of common habitual residence before they separated. The Court previously dismissed a motion by the Respondent for an Order and declaration that Ontario lacked jurisdiction over the Applicant’s spousal support and property division claims under the FLA. The Court found that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter regarding the matter but that the Applicant’s divorce application was a nullity as she had not been in Ontario for one year prior to the Application.
However, the Court also determined that s. 14 of the FLA applied to the Applicant’s application such that the law of Iran would govern the property rights of the spouses rather than the law of Ontario. In her endorsement, Justice Kraft wrote ”…the FLA will not apply to Setareh’s [Applicant] property claims, or her equitable claims for unjust enrichment and joint family venture. Section 15 of the FLA is applicable such that the law of Iran will govern the property rights of both spouses.” The Applicant moved to remove these sentences from the endorsement, claiming they contained a mistake in conflating the term “property division” with “equitable claims”.
ISSUES
- Did the previous endorsement stating that claims related to “property division” fall outside of Ontario’s jurisdiction due to the last habitual residence being Iran also preclude the Applicant from advancing non-proprietary claims in Ontario?
ANALYSIS
The Applicant argued that as it was currently worded, the endorsement would prevent her from bringing equitable claims before the court which were not property claims.
The Court found that the previous endorsement was too broad and required clarification so as not to preclude the Applicant from advancing equitable claims that may not result in a proprietary interest.
As equity claims are rooted in the common law rather than the FLA, there are no statutory provisions which would govern claims made by the Applicant for unjust enrichment and joint family venture. While remedies for unjust enrichment can be proprietary, they may also be purely monetary. As such, the opportunity to bring such monetary claims to the Court should not be precluded simply because the doctrine has the potential to result in a proprietary remedy.
Finally, the Court ruled that they would not make a finding that Iranian law applied to the Applicant’s equitable and joint family venture claims for non-proprietary relief. The question of whether Iranian law would apply to equitable claims in this case was left open for further adjudication.
CONCLUSION
The Court corrected the portions of the previous Endorsement so the references to the Applicant’s equitable claims for unjust enrichment and joint family venture were not referenced in relation to the FLA.