Okmyansky v. Okmyansky,

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Feldman, Sharpe and Simmons, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2007 ONCA 427
• Citation: 2007 ONCA 427,(2007), 225 O.A.C. 60 (CA),86 OR (3d) 587,284 DLR (4th) 152,38 RFL (6th) 291,[2007] OJ No 2298 (QL),158 ACWS (3d) 957,225 OAC 60,86 O.R. (3d) 587,284 D.L.R. (4th) 152,225 O.A.C. 60,[2007] O.J. No 2298 (QL),(2007), 225 OAC 60 (CA)
• Date: 16 March 2007
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)

Okmyansky v. Okmyansky (2007), 225 O.A.C. 60 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.020

Natalia Okmyansky (applicant/respondent on appeal) v. Yevgeny Okmyansky (respondent/appellant on appeal)

(C46112; 2007 ONCA 427)

Indexed As: Okmyansky v. Okmyansky

Ontario Court of Appeal

Feldman, Sharpe and Simmons, JJ.A.

June 12, 2007.

Summary:

Spouses were married in Russia in 1974. During 2003, they lived together in Ontario for about 6 months. In July 2003, the husband returned to Russia and applied for a divorce. After the divorce was granted, the wife commenced an application, claiming support under the Divorce Act or the Family Law Act and a division of assets under the Family Law Act. The husband challenged the jurisdiction of the Ontario courts to entertain the application and sought a stay of proceedings.

The Ontario Superior Court dismissed the application. The husband appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and ordered a stay of the support claims.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 2061

Family law - Property - General - Spouses were married in Russia in 1974 - During 2003, they lived together in Ontario for about 6 months - In July 2003, the husband returned to Russia and applied for a divorce - After the divorce was granted, the wife commenced an application, claiming support under the Divorce Act or the Family Law Act and a division of assets under the Family Law Act - The husband challenged the jurisdiction of the Ontario courts to entertain the application and sought a stay of proceedings - The trial judge dismissed the application - The husband appealed, asserting that while s. 7 of the Family Law Act permitted an application by a "former spouse" to determine any matter respecting the spouses' entitlement to an equalization, a "former spouse" in this context referred to a person divorced in Canada - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the assertion - There was nothing in the Family Law Act that supported the assertion - See paragraphs 43 to 52.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 2222

Family law - Maintenance - Jurisdiction of court - Spouses were married in Russia in 1974 - During 2003, they lived together in Ontario for about 6 months - In July 2003, the husband returned to Russia and applied for a divorce - After the divorce was granted, the wife commenced an application, claiming support under the Divorce Act or the Family Law Act and a division of assets under the Family Law Act - The husband challenged the jurisdiction of the Ontario courts to entertain the application and sought a stay of proceedings - The trial judge dismissed the application - The husband appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and ordered a stay of the support claims - An Ontario court did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine a corollary relief proceeding under the Divorce Act following a valid divorce in a foreign jurisdiction - There was nothing in the legislative history of the Divorce Act to indicate that Parliament intended to confer jurisdiction on Canadian courts to hear and determine a corollary relief proceeding under the Divorce Act following a valid divorce in a foreign jurisdiction - See paragraphs 31 to 41.

Family Law - Topic 665

Husband and wife - Marital property - Practice - Jurisdiction - [See Conflict of Laws - Topic 2061 ].

Family Law - Topic 4001

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance and awards - Jurisdiction of a court to grant maintenance (incl. automatic increases and reservation re future applications) - [See Conflict of Laws - Topic 2222 ].

Cases Noticed:

Rothgiesser v. Rothgiesser (2000), 128 O.A.C. 302; 46 O.R.(3d) 577 (C.A.), consd. [para. 23].

Virani v. Virani (2006), 222 B.C.A.C. 178; 368 W.A.C. 178; 264 D.L.R.(4th) 524 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

L.R.V. v. A.A.V. - see Virani v. Virani.

O.M. v. A.K. (2000), 9 R.F.L.(5th) 111 (Que. S.C.), dist. [para. 40].

G.M. v. M.A.F., [2003] R.J.Q. 2516 (C.A.), dist. [para. 40].

Jahangiri-Mavaneh v. Taheri-Zengekani, [2003] O.T.C. 705; 66 O.R.(3d) 272 (Sup. Ct. Fam. Ct.), revd. [2005] O.A.C. Uned. 255; 14 R.F.L.(6th) 9 (C.A.), dist. [para. 48].

Wlodarczyk v. Spriggs (2000), 200 Sask.R. 129; 12 R.F.L.(5th) 241 (Q.B. Fam. Div.), dist. [para. 48].

Dashtarai v. Shahrestani, [2006] O.J. No. 5367 (Sup. Ct. Fam. Ct.), dist. [para. 48].

Mercieca v. Mercieca, [2002] O.T.C. 996; 32 R.F.L.(5th) 392 (Sup. Ct.), dist. [para. 48].

Counsel:

Alla Koren, for the appellant;

Elizabeth Julien-Wilson, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 16, 2007, by Feldman, Sharpe and Simmons, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Simmons, J.A., delivered the following judgment of the Court of Appeal on June 12, 2007.