0

1) A separation agreement was made between M & F (both Canadian) but living in California.

2) The agreement states that F entirely owns n Properties in Canada.

3) M moves back to Canada, and over 10 years later wants to challenge the separation agreement.

4) The case is circulating the courts now, and M is claiming the separation agreement is one-sided and unfair. M wants some of the properties and has placed a CPL(lein) on F's properties in the meantime.

5) F is forced to constantly travel between Canada & California to deal with this.

How is it possible that the Canadian courts are even considering this? Do they have jurisdiction to over-turn a separation agreement made in California?

M believes that F gave the BC Supreme court jurisdiction by replying to M's motion with a counterclaim. Is this a true, does it really work that way?

Thank you. Please let me know if you require any clarification.

| improve this question | |
  • This sounds eerily similar to this question. Are you the same person with a different account? – user17707 Apr 20 '18 at 19:36
  • I am asking for a friend (who appears to have posted that already). We are not the same person. – Raven Apr 20 '18 at 20:32
1

How is it possible that the Canadian courts are even considering this?

Because they were asked to.

Do they have jurisdiction ...

Maybe. One of the powers a court has is to decide if they have jurisdiction. The case involves Canadians and Canadian real estate - they need to at least consider if they have jurisdiction. They can decide wrongly but that’s what appeals are for.

F should be providing them with evidence that they don’t have jurisdiction on the basis of Res Judicata but they will ultimately make up their own mind.

to over-turn a separation agreement made in California?

Of course not - Canadian courts cannot tell a Californian courts what to do.

And vice-versa. Which means they certainly have the power to refuse to enforce its effects in Canada. If F wants to rely on the Californian judgement in Canada then the Canadian court has to allow this.

| improve this answer | |
  • If Canadian courts cannot tell California courts what to do, and V.V, how can F rely on the California judgement while the Canadian court has the option to refuse its (California's) effects? The effect being, F owns the properties, and has for the last 10+ years. – Raven Apr 20 '18 at 23:07
  • 1
    You can ask the Canadian court to enforce the Californian judgement and it probably will but it is ultimately their decision – Dale M♦ Apr 20 '18 at 23:56
  • As an extreme case, some things are legal in some jurisdictions and not others. I don't know of any differences in handling real property, but there are other things that could come up. Perhaps in one jurisdiction it's legal to waive parental rights, and it isn't in another jurisdiction. – David Thornley Sep 19 '18 at 21:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.