For The Love Of Canada And Not Your Spouse – Weddings For Immigration And Not For Love

In a recent decision by Justice Shergill, Charan v. Charan, 2018 BCSC 1537, the Court had the opportunity to consider the operation of family legislation in the context of a marriage where the spouse was "motivated less by her love for Mr. Charan, and more by her desire to immigration to Canada". The issues included the validity of the parties' first marriage ceremony, family property, and child and spousal support.

The was a 3-year marriage where the parties participated in a marriage ceremony in India and then a Hindu ceremony in Canada. The husband argued that the Indian ceremony was invalid because it did not comply with the statute under which it was purportedly performed and that the marriage was involuntary on his part. The judge rejected these arguments, noting that there was no expert evidence to rebut the presumption under the Evidence Act that the marriage was valid, and finding that the husband had not been coerced into the marriage. As to proof of validity, both parties testified that the marriage occurred. In addition, "the Canadian immigration authorities were satisfied that the Indian Marriage was valid. On the strength of the Indian Marriage, they permitted Ms. Charan and her son to immigration to Canada under the spousal sponsorship category": para. 40. As such, the judge concluded that the Indian marriage ceremony was valid.

As to spousal support, the wife argued that the sponsorship undertaking, which the husband had been required to make to Citizenship and Immigration Canada to provide for the food, care, lodging, transportation, and health needs of the sponsored spouse for a period of time, created a contractual obligation on Mr. Charan, such that he was contractually bound in the family law proceeding to fulfill the undertaking. Noting the purpose of the undertaking and a divergence in the case law in British Columbia and Ontario, the judge rejected this argument. However, it was a factor to consider, such that it formed part of the analysis dealing with compensatory and non-compensatory support. The judge found that the wife was not entitled to non-compensatory support, but that she had suffered economic disadvantage from the economic breakdown. This disadvantage was minimal, of short duration, and moderated by the wife's decision, even prior to the relationship, to explore avenues to move to Canada. She was entitled to lump sum support of $250, which was extinguished based on support provided by Mr. Charan after...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT