Case information

Private international law — Forum non conveniens — Family law — Divorce — Validity of foreign divorce — How does the jurisdictional test set out by this Court in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 572, apply within the context of family litigation? — Does the location of witnesses and documentary evidence remain relevant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens in light of technological advancements?

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The parties, Mr. and Ms. Li, met in China in 2003 and married there in 2012. A marital assets agreement, among others, was executed by the parties: it was witnessed by Chinese witnesses; drafted in the Chinese language; and valued assets in Chinese currency. Mr. Li is a Canadian citizen, and Ms. Li is a Chinese citizen. Over the course of the marriage, Ms. Li spent most of her time in China, where she has a number corporate and real property interests. The only assets held in Canada were two Toronto homes held in Ms. Li’s name alone. In 2018, the parties obtained a divorce certificate in China, which Mr. Li now disputes. Mr. Li commenced an application seeking a declaration that the Chinese divorce not be recognized or enforced in Ontario and a declaration that Ontario has jurisdiction to determine the outstanding property and support issues between the parties. The motion judge found that Ontario has jurisdiction, and that it is the more appropriate forum to decide the issues between the parties. The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in principle in her analysis on the issue of forum non conveniens. It stayed Mr. Li’s application, and allowed Ms. Li’s appeal. The court concluded that China was clearly the more appropriate forum for resolving the parties’ property issues.