I think you are taking a bit of a broad brush approach here BCTechy.
First, a divorce in Canada does not result in an automatic entitlement to 50% of anything. When it comes to pensions, including CPP, the only entitlement will be to a share based on contributions while married. For eg., if husband contributes to a DB pension plan at work and has 25 contributory years, and if the parties were married for 2 years, then the wife’s share will be 2/25ths of the husband’s pension entitlement. If he has 25 years in the plan, but made no contributions while married, the wife has no entitlement. CPP works essentially same way. There is legislation governing this. As well, at least in BC, time married is not what counts so much as time together. If parties marry in 2010, separate in 2012 and divorce in 2020, (by which time the husband has 25 years in the plan), the wife’s share of his pension is not 10/25ths of his plan value. It will still be only 2/25 reflecting 2 years of cohabitation.
I should point out, as well, that a party served with papers from a Canadian court, if they want to claim entitlement to any relief in their own right, such as pension division or spousal support, must participate in the proceeding, file response pleadings and assert a claim. No entitlement flows "automatically". Not in any jurisdiction with which I am familiar. Armoured and/or scylla perhaps can speak for Ontario, but I would be surprised to see an Ontario court awarding relief not sought. The difference is child support. Canadian courts tend to see that as the right of the child and it cannot be waived, bargained away or lost due to the action or inaction of either parent.
Another point is this. Where the divorce occurs might not make all that much difference. In fact, a foreign court might be more generous and a Canadian court might “recognize” the foreign order and enforce it. So, depending on the family law regime in Russia, the wife does not have to sit around and see if she can somehow get to Canada and initiate proceedings in Canada.
In the case under discussion here, I suspect all this is academic since I also suspect this was a marriage of short duration and, barring unusual circumstances, any claim of the wife would be modest indeed, sufficiently so as to make it uneconomic to retain counsel to seek any corollary relief in addition to the divorce.
Also, it is not the case that “Some of these things do not take into account the amount of time you were married (ie spousal support).” This point is addressed, inter alia, under the federal Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines. See:
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/spousal-epoux/ssag-ldfpae.html
As the SSAG illustrate, duration of “cohabitation” - not duration of marriage - is of fundamental importance.
For a case that gives some insight into how Canadian courts look at foreign divorce decrees, including corollary relief provisions, see:
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/spousal-epoux/ssag-ldfpae.html
Of particular interest here is the discussion of a Russian couple, at para. 37,
et seq.
[37] In Okmyansky, the parties were raised and married in the former U.S.S.R. In 2003, they moved to Toronto. Shortly thereafter, the husband returned to Russia and applied for a divorce. …
Both scylla and armoured have Ontario family law knowledge and experience and I’ll defer to them to expand on how all these things play out in Ontario. In BC, when foreign law rears its ugly head, it’s never straightforward. There is both the federal Divorce Act and the provincial Family Law Act to consider. Issues of “paramountcy” fall to be considered. Then legislation such as the provincial Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act come into play, and legislation and case law dealing with recognition and reciprocal enforcement of foreign judgments. The actual mechanics of pension division raises the application of provincial pension benefits standards legislation, or, where applicable, the federal Pension Benefits Division Act. The latter applies to pension plans of federally-regulated employees, such as airline workers. The cases tend to be fact-driven and applying the law to the facts in any case is not always a simple matter.
