Before an Ontario court divides property or grants a divorce, there has to be a valid marriage. In Sidhu v. Kaur, 2026 ONCA 777, released October 30, 2026, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld an order declaring that two people who had a traditional wedding ceremony in India were not legally married. That order also ended the man's divorce and equalization claims (paras. 1-2, 6). The decision is short, but its message to anyone married outside Canada is direct: if the validity of the marriage is challenged, the person relying on it must prove it, and incomplete proof fails.
This is general information about a published decision, not legal advice about your situation.
The decision at a glance
Citation: Sidhu v. Kaur, 2026 ONCA 777 (Court of Appeal for Ontario; Roberts, Favreau and Copeland JJ.A.). Heard and rendered orally October 28, 2026; reasons released October 30, 2026.
Official text: Court of Appeal for Ontario decision
Result: appeal dismissed; the respondent receives $6,000 in costs, all-inclusive, as the parties agreed (para. 6).
What happened
The appellant asked the Superior Court for a divorce and an equalization of property. The motion judge found that the traditional wedding ceremony in India was not a valid marriage, declared that the parties were not legally married, and dismissed his divorce and equalization claims (para. 1). The Court of Appeal saw "no error" in what it called her "thorough decision" (para. 2).
Why the appeal failed
1. Foreign law has to be proven, and the proof was incomplete. The appellant relied on opinion evidence about whether the marriage was valid under foreign law. The motion judge did not accept it, because the witnesses giving those opinions had not been told about, and had not addressed, the effect of his two later marriages and a divorce (para. 3). The Court of Appeal agreed. It said "Foreign law must be proven by expert evidence", that the opinions here "were incomplete", and that he therefore did not meet his burden of proving the marriage valid under foreign law (para. 3).
2. No trial was needed. The appellant argued there was a genuine issue requiring a trial. The Court disagreed: he "had an obligation to put his best foot forward", and his evidence fell short of proving the marriage (para. 4).
3. Section 31 of the Marriage Act did not save the marriage. Section 31 of Ontario's Marriage Act deems certain marriages valid even where something went wrong with the formalities. It applies where the parties to a marriage "solemnized in good faith and intended to be in compliance with this Act" are not under a legal disqualification and, after the ceremony, "have lived together and cohabited as a married couple". In those cases the marriage is deemed valid even though the officiant was not authorized, or there was an irregularity in the banns or the licence (Marriage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.3, s. 31).
Applying s. 31 and the principles for recognizing foreign marriages, the motion judge found the appellant had not met the criteria that he "intended in good faith to enter into a valid marriage" with the respondent in India. The Court of Appeal found no error (para. 5).
The evidence that decided it
The Court listed the evidence the motion judge accepted, which "amply supported her conclusion" (para. 5): - the alleged marriage was not registered; - a second marriage was recognized by Canadian immigration authorities and later dissolved, shown by an Ontario divorce certificate; - a third marriage was registered in India; and - while living with the respondent, the appellant told Canadian tax and immigration authorities that he was single.
What changed, and what didn't
The decision does not create a new test. The Court applied existing law: foreign law is proven by evidence (para. 3), a party facing summary judgment must put their best foot forward (para. 4), and s. 31 and the recognition principles turn on the facts, including good-faith intent (para. 5). What the case shows clearly is how those rules play out. Opinion evidence that leaves out part of a person's marital history may not be accepted (para. 3), and a person's own statements to government agencies can be used to show what they intended (para. 5).
Who this affects
People married in a religious or traditional ceremony outside Canada who later separate in Ontario and want a divorce or an equalization of property (para. 1).
Spouses on the other side who say there was never a valid marriage (paras. 1, 5).
Anyone with more than one marriage in their history. In this case, the later marriages and divorce were central to why the opinion evidence failed (para. 3) and to the good-faith finding (para. 5).
Anyone who has described their marital status to tax or immigration authorities. Those statements were part of the evidence the motion judge accepted (para. 5).
Practical takeaways
Validity comes first. Without a valid marriage, the divorce and equalization claims here were dismissed (para. 1).
The person relying on a foreign marriage carries the burden. Here it was the appellant who had to prove validity under foreign law (para. 3).
Give your foreign-law witness the whole history. Opinions that did not address the later marriages and divorce were "incomplete" (para. 3).
Registration matters as evidence. The lack of registration was one of the facts the motion judge accepted (para. 5).
Consistency matters. Telling tax and immigration authorities you are single while claiming to be married weighed against the appellant's good faith (para. 5).
Bring your best evidence early. On a summary judgment motion, a party must put their best foot forward (para. 4).
Frequently asked questions
Is a marriage in India automatically valid in Ontario?
Not automatically. In Sidhu v. Kaur, a traditional ceremony in India was found not to be a valid marriage. The person relying on it had to prove its validity under foreign law and did not (paras. 1, 3).
How do you prove a foreign marriage is valid in an Ontario case?
In this case the Court said "Foreign law must be proven by expert evidence". Opinions that did not address two later marriages and a divorce were "incomplete" (para. 3).
What does section 31 of the Marriage Act do?
It deems a marriage valid despite certain formal defects, such as an unauthorized officiant or irregular banns or licence, if the marriage was solemnized in good faith, intended to comply with the Act, the parties were not legally disqualified, and they lived together as a married couple afterwards (Marriage Act, s. 31). Here, the motion judge found the good-faith criteria were not met (para. 5).
Can what I told the CRA or immigration be used in my family case?
In this case it was. The appellant's statements to Canadian tax and immigration authorities that he was single were part of the evidence supporting the finding against him (para. 5).
Separating after a marriage abroad? Book a consultation
Francis Mehr LLP handles family law matters, including divorce and property claims, for clients in Ottawa and across Ontario. If the validity of a marriage is in question, get advice before you file. Book a consultation with the lawyers at Francis Mehr LLP: call (613) 226-1011 or contact us.
Written by the lawyers of Francis Mehr LLP. Published October 30, 2026; reflects the decision released October 30, 2026 and the Marriage Act as consolidated on e-Laws (currency date October 27, 2026). This post is general information, not legal advice.
