Dual Domicile Test: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==Grewal v. Kaur, 2011 ONSC 1812 (CanLII){{Grewal}}== | ==Grewal v. Kaur, 2011 ONSC 1812 (CanLII){{Grewal}}== | ||
[12] I have concluded that the proper law to apply in determining the essential validity of this marriage, that is whether Aman’s consent was vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation, is the law of Ontario. The law of Ontario applies, under conflict of laws rules, because Aman, whose consent is at issue, was domiciled in Ontario at the time of the marriage. As such, I have applied the “dual domicile” test; that is, the validity of each party’s consent is to be assessed under the laws of their respective premarital domicile. The same result would follow if the law of the parties’ intended matrimonial home were applied. | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 17:16, 2 May 2021
Grewal v. Kaur, 2011 ONSC 1812 (CanLII)[1]
[12] I have concluded that the proper law to apply in determining the essential validity of this marriage, that is whether Aman’s consent was vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation, is the law of Ontario. The law of Ontario applies, under conflict of laws rules, because Aman, whose consent is at issue, was domiciled in Ontario at the time of the marriage. As such, I have applied the “dual domicile” test; that is, the validity of each party’s consent is to be assessed under the laws of their respective premarital domicile. The same result would follow if the law of the parties’ intended matrimonial home were applied.
References
- ↑ Grewal v. Kaur, 2011 ONSC 1812 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/fks4x>, retrieved on 2021-05-02
