CANADA Law and Practice Contributed by: Lorne MacLean, KC, Fraser MacLean, Sophie Bartholomew and Rana Yavari, MacLean Law
tionship, or the presence of children, a partner may claim an interest in assets where financial or non‑financial contributions support an unjust enrichment or trust‑based remedy. Key takeaways • No automatic equalisation in many provinces – unmarried partners often lack statutory rights to equal division of property upon separation, subject to specific legislative exceptions. • Equitable claims remain central – unjust enrichment and related trust remedies require proof of benefit, deprivation, and the absence of a juristic reason. • Support may still be available – many provinces allow qualifying unmarried partners to claim spousal or partner support, even where no statu ‑ tory property‑division regime applies. • Significant provincial variation – outcomes depend heavily on local legislation, case law, and the forum’s approach to equitable remedies and evi ‑ dentiary requirements. 2.7 Enforcement of Financial Orders The refusal to obey family financial orders is a per ‑ sistent problem in family law courts worldwide and contributes significantly to the feminisation of poverty in Canada. Courts take a firm approach to ensuring that properly obtained financial family orders – both for support and for property division – are complied with. Available remedies include: Federal and provincial enforcement tools, includ ‑ ing registration with government agencies to collect funds, garnish federal and provincial payments, and deny passports and licences Registration with provincial Family Maintenance Enforcement programmes, which track and enforce payments and may prevent renewal of driver’s licenc ‑ es and vehicle insurance. • Sale of property. • Posting of security. • Appointment of receivers. • Injunctive relief to discover and freeze assets. Fines and Penalties Garnishing orders
• Conversion of periodic support into lump‑sum sup ‑ port. • Subpoena‑to‑debtor hearings. • Incarceration. A validly obtained foreign divorce removes the for ‑ mer spouse’s ability to seek corollary relief under the Divorce Act for support and child‑related matters, unless provincial legislation for spousal support and family property division defines a person making a post‑foreign‑divorce claim as “a former spouse”. Defences to the recognition of a foreign divorce and financial relief include lack of natural justice, fraud, lack of notice, public policy concerns, and forum shopping. Enforcement of foreign family financial orders is gov ‑ erned primarily by provincial and territorial legislation, co-ordinated through federal mechanisms and inter ‑ national conventions where applicable. The Interjuris ‑ dictional Support Orders Act (ISO Act) is the primary tool for enforcing support orders. Many provinces are signatories to the Hague Convention on the Interna ‑ tional Recovery of Child Support and have reciproc ‑ ity agreements with foreign jurisdictions, as a foreign order can only be enforced where such an agree ‑ ment exists. These statutes allow for the registration, enforcement, and potential variation of foreign orders. Provinces generally apply their own laws to enforce ‑ ment but may apply foreign law in specific circum ‑ stances related to entitlement or duration. Most ISO Acts focus on child and spousal support. Common‑law principles apply to the enforcement of final property division orders and monetary judgments arising from family proceedings. To enforce a foreign monetary order related to prop ‑ erty, the order must be final, and the foreign court must have had a real and substantial connection to the family matter and the financial issues involved. The order must also have been fairly obtained, with proper notice, without fraud, and not contrary to Canadian public policy. Generally, a new proceeding must be initiated in the appropriate Canadian jurisdiction to recognise a for ‑ eign monetary order for property or compensation.
73 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook