Divorce from pakistan- benefits?

[locolynn]

my email:- muhfaizan @ hotmail.com
number:- 613-863-4998

may i suggest you delete this post and send it as a private message. It is not a good idea to have personal information, like your phone number on a very public forum!

Lynn

 

[toby]

It might be highly unlikely but it is nessessary.Or they get divorced in Canada.Read above it states it over and over that proceeding the divorce in the other country they must be residents for one year.Or it is not recgonized.

Or, have a substantial connection to a different country/place that recognizes the legality of the divorce. The example given was that the couple resided in California, divorced in Nevada, and then moved to Canada. They maintained a substantial connection to California, and California recognized the legality of their divorce in Nevada. In this case, Canada also recognizes the divorce, even though neither spouse had resided in Nevada for the prior year.

This logic of respecting the Law of the country (or state, etc. ) where a divorcing spouse maintains a substantial connection would apply as follows, in my thinking. The couple married in Pakistan, moved to Canada, and one spouse returned to Pakistan briefly to obtain a divorce. If the divorce is legal in Pakistan, it might be legal in the eyes of Canada. That is debatable. But especially where the divorcing spouse has substantial ties with Pakistan, then the explicitly-stated policy of the Canadian government is that Canada would recognize the divorce, and presumably the assets would be apportioned to each spouse according to the terms of that foreign divorce.

 

[PMM]

Hi

Or, have a substantial connection to a different country/place that recognizes the legality of the divorce. The example given was that the couple resided in California, divorced in Nevada, and then moved to Canada. They maintained a substantial connection to California, and California recognized the legality of their divorce in Nevada. In this case, Canada also recognizes the divorce, even though neither spouse had resided in Nevada for the prior year.

This logic of respecting the Law of the country (or state, etc. ) where a divorcing spouse maintains a substantial connection would apply as follows, in my thinking. The couple married in Pakistan, moved to Canada, and one spouse returned to Pakistan briefly to obtain a divorce. If the divorce is legal in Pakistan, it might be legal in the eyes of Canada. That is debatable. But especially where the divorcing spouse has substantial ties with Pakistan, then the explicitly-stated policy of the Canadian government is that Canada would recognize the divorce, and presumably the assets would be apportioned to each spouse according to the terms of that foreign divorce.

You need to read Section 22 of the Divorce Act.

Recognition of foreign divorce
22. (1) A divorce granted, on or after the coming into force of this Act, pursuant to a law of a country or subdivision of a country other than Canada by a tribunal or other authority having jurisdiction to do so shall be recognized for all purposes of determining the marital status in Canada of any person, if either former spouse was ordinarily resident in that country or subdivision for at least one year immediately preceding the commencement of proceedings for the divorce.

Nevada in the above context is a subdivision in the US so a California resident (another subdivision) who is resident in the United States for 1 year, Canada would recognize the divorce.

In the context of Immigration visit CanLII and search for the text divorce and substantial connection http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/index.html

 

[HoneyBird]

You all are being hard on the poster...but I wanted to ask...was this an arranged marriage?

 

[joecreosta]

You all are being hard on the poster...but I wanted to ask...was this an arranged marriage?

very good question.also if u look his id it is Peace87 maybe he born in 1987 makes him 22 or 23 years old.he said he married 2 years ago so he was 19 or 20 years old when he got married.

do not be so hard on this boy pls.let us help him work on his mariage.
but Peace87. how can you convince all of us that she USED you only to come canada and become PR and citizenship only? that is a strong allegation against some1.

mariage is not a game of IN and OUT criteria.many things she can hate about u and u can hate about her.dont mean you right away in a few months make decision of THAT IS IT.

so if u already think 5 months is long enough to already divorce someone. then u should know in ISLAM assuming ur moslim. there is no divorce or talaq the way ur describing ur relationship. u have to give her 3 chances, not "TALAQ TALAQ TALAQ" as mostly pakistanies and indians moslims thinks.saying that word do not actually get u divorced. u have to work things out with her first.work on ur mariage.let things heal for a year two years.......then see and make consultation with a sheikh from masjid and make salat istikhara.

brother we all love u in this post.we want to help you.but divorce is never easy way out of problems. it is more harder for you. ur only 22 23 years old.u have all life ahead of u.look at bright side of life and wife.maybe she needs little time to settle down in canada.its not easy for someone to leave all her family and friends brothers sisters from pakistan and come all the way to canada just to be with you. she must be having some difficult times getting to knwo canadien culture.so pls give her chance.

even after all this.assuming u give her 3 chances.and try to work things out for another 2 years more. im sorry but she doesnt deserve a husband who already made up his mind to divorce her from day 1.and she should get share of everything you own.

how will u prove to court she used u for visa? did u see her red handed with another man at Tim Hortons? cmoon bro pls it is ramadan ask allah for help only he can help u.

im ur brother Yusuf

 

[toby]

Thanks for the reference, PMM. I went to the CanLII website, and searched for “divorce and substantial connection”, as you advised. I did not read all the cases; the first (Bhatti v. Canada) seems to settle the issue clearly.

There is a lot of legal opining and argumentation in the case – I guess lawyers get paid by the word! However, after blowing away all the legalistic dust, the crux of the matter seems to be that where a Canadian resident has a real and substantial connection with a foreign jurisdiction, for a year before obtaining a divorce in that foreign jurisdiction, then Canada will recognize the divorce. A year of residence is not the only ground for valid divorce.

The CIC Operations Manual mentions both criteria: residence and connection.

Quoting from the court transcript:
“The Operations Manual on which the visa officer relied, states that the parties must ordinarily reside in the foreign jurisdiction for one year before applying for a divorce or the petitioner must have a real and substantial connection to the foreign jurisdiction for the one year period before divorce proceedings begin. (My emphasis.) The Operations Manual is not a statement of the law. Rather it is a guide and I find it more helpful to refer directly to the Divorce Act, the common law and the jurisprudence.”

And again:
“The Divorce Act requires that one of the parties be ordinarily resident for at least a one-year period before the start of divorce proceedings. I take the words “ordinarily resident” to mean where one’s every day life is centered and on the basis of being in Pakistan for one month in 1996, the appellant does not meet this criteria. However, the common-law concepts of “domicile” and “real and substantial connection” have not been displaced by the Divorce Act. This is implicit in a reading of sections 22(1) and (3). Indeed, in providing a guide for family law practitioners in Ontario when providing opinion letters about the recognition of foreign divorces, the Deputy Registrar of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations specifically refers to not only to subsection 22(1) but to recognition on the basis of domicile and on the basis of a real and substantial connection between the party or parties and the granting jurisdiction.[26]”(My emphasis.)

In the court’s eyes, the man who divorced in Pakistan had such a “real and substantial connection” even though he was a Canadian citizen and had resided in Canada over 30 years. He was also a citizen of Pakistan, owned a house (inherited from his father), owned a small parcel of land, had committed to donating a large sum of money to a Pakistani religious school, and intended to retire in Pakistan.

So, apart from the uncertainty of leaving a subjective Visa Officer to determine whether one has a “real and substantial connection” with a foreign divorce jurisdiction, absent a full year of residence, this will do.

 

[toby]

may i suggest you delete this post and send it as a private message. It is not a good idea to have personal information, like your phone number on a very public forum!

Lynn

Heh, heh, Lynn:

You should delete your post too, since it contains the same personal information, because you quoted the first poster.

 

[Cdagal]

It stands to reason that, regrardless of the reason for the divorce, it is in their mutual best interests to not leave her in a difficult situation financially. He is responsible for providing for her for 3 years, so if she has to look to the government for support it will come back to bite him. I think the best option is to play nice and then move on.