Select ratingPoorOkayGoodGreatAwesome

No votes yet

Madhavi and Kumar on their wedding day

Marriages of convenience that are many a time followed by divorces of convenience have become a growing form of immigration fraud in Canada.

Detecting them and taking action, however, is far from easy especially with Asian couples and the tradition of arranged marriages.

Now, as detailed in our exclusive front page story, B.C. Supreme Court judge E.R.A. Edwards has opened the door for Canadians who have been duped to exact some form of retribution.

The case revolves around a Fijian-Canadian divorcee who met and married a younger man in her homeland.

The Vancouver-area woman was the cad’s ticket to Canada.

That was until Justice Edwards rendered his decision.

The case was pretty straightforward – woman meets man, man marries woman, man lies to woman, man gets his visa to come to Canada, abandons her and then files for divorce while maintaining an illicit relationship with another.

The award was limited, with the man being ordered to pay his wife about $25,000 for expenses and hurt. There was no award for punitive damages.

The judgment, however, has far reaching implications.

Prior to this case, Canadian courts have consistently refused to grant damages for inter-spousal deceit when a marriage fails.

The courts never awarded damages in cases involving improper motive for marriage, or for reasons such as the husband was not as suitable a candidate as the wife had thought.

The courts felt that it was up to the spouses to work out their differences with respect to the quality of the union, motives, expectations, matters of conscience and religion.

The remedies for warring spouses fell under the Divorce Act and the Family Relations Act.

In this case, however, Justice Edwards used a section of the Law and Equity Act in B.C. to remove the barrier against spouses for suing each other for deceit. That provision was enacted under the Charter of Rights Amendment Act.

The judicial maneuver set a precedent and if upheld as law will provide jilted sponsors a remedy against lying spouses in cases of marriages of immigration convenience.

Now Immigration Canada should take the next step.

Instead of waiting for a formal complaint, like it usually does, enforcement officers should pay the deceitful husband who has since moved to Edmonton a visit.

This judicial landmark if combined with effective enforcement action will go a long way in letting the world know that Canada will say "you won’t" to those who say "I do" in marriages of convenience.