Overview
In Mir v. Sarabi, 2026 BCSC 1013, the Supreme Court of British Columbia considered whether an Iranian temporary marriage known as a sigheh could be recognized as a civil marriage and dissolved under the federal Divorce Act. Cyrus Haghighi acted as counsel in the proceeding.
The Factual Background
The dispute centered on a couple who entered into a fixed-term temporary marriage (sigheh) in Azadegan, Karaj, Iran, on April 3, 2010. Under the terms of their Canonical Marriage Deed, the union was contracted for a specific duration of 50 years, explicitly stating it was valid until April 3, 2060. It also included a defined mehr—a marriage portion payable to the wife upon demand, consisting in this case of a volume of the Holy Koran and one Full Bahar Azadi Gold Coin.
The couple subsequently relocated to Canada as refugees and obtained a desk order divorce from the Supreme Court of British Columbia on November 12, 2016. Years later, a severe dispute arose regarding their actual date of separation. This prompted the claimant to seek to set aside the original divorce order on the basis that the sworn separation dates were false, allowing her to pursue spousal support and the division of family property under Canadian law.
In response, the respondent brought a highly adversarial application seeking a declaration that the sigheh marriage was never a valid civil marriage under Canadian law. He argued it was merely a "common-law or marriage-like relationship". The respondent further argued that because Iranian law does not utilize a formal divorce to dissolve a temporary marriage, the marriage could not be terminated by a Canadian court under the Divorce Act.
The Procedural Battle: Estoppel and Abuse of Process
Before the Court could even address the validity of the foreign marriage, a complex procedural battle unfolded. Representing the claimant, we argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the respondent's application under the doctrine of functus officio, and that the respondent was legally estopped from challenging the marriage.
The respondent had previously relied on the very existence of the sigheh marriage to successfully obtain the desk order divorce in 2016. We argued that for him to now assert the opposite, that the marriage was invalid and immune to the Divorce Act, in order to shield himself from spousal support claims was a textbook abuse of process. While Justice Jones ultimately allowed the application to proceed because the original desk order was not "heard on its merits", this aggressive procedural defense set the stage for a strict examination of the respondent's shifting legal positions.
The Substantive Legal Framework: Status vs. Remedy
To dismantle the respondent's substantive arguments, we focused the Court on the bedrock conflict of laws principle of lex loci celebrationis, the rule that the formal validity of a marriage is determined by the law of the place where it was celebrated.
The Court carefully examined the expert evidence of Mr. Jafar Mostafa, an Iranian lawyer, who testified that Iranian law recognizes two distinct forms of marriage: permanent and temporary (sigheh). To be legally valid under Articles 1075 and 1076 of the Iranian Civil Code, a temporary marriage requires a definitively determined duration and a clearly specified mehr at the time of the agreement.
The Court found that the parties' Canonical Marriage Deed strictly satisfied these requirements. It possessed significant formalities, including signatures, fingerprints, a witness, and the stamp of the clergy who pronounced the marriage formula.
Crucially, Justice Jones decisively separated the status of the marriage from the remedies available in its country of origin. Mr. Mostafa's evidence noted that in Iran, a temporary marriage does not end by divorce, but rather by the expiration of the term or the man waiving the remainder of the time. However, the Court ruled that the unavailability of a divorce remedy in Iran does not strip the union of its legal validity as a marriage. Because the parties were legally married spouses upon arriving in Canada, they were entitled to terminate the marriage via a divorce order in Canada.
The Public Policy Anchor: Protecting Vulnerable Spouses
One of the most critical and progressive elements of Justice Jones’s ruling is rooted in Canadian public policy and the protection of gender equality.
At paragraph 99 of the decision, the Court tackled the inherent inequalities of the foreign law. Under Iranian law, a man has the exclusive, unilateral right to terminate a temporary marriage by waiving the remainder of the marriage period, a right that is strictly denied to the woman. Furthermore, spouses in a sigheh marriage do not automatically gain the right to financial support or inheritance.
By bringing the sigheh under the jurisdiction of the Divorce Act, the Supreme Court of British Columbia ensured that the deeply inequitable dissolution mechanics of the foreign jurisdiction were not imported into Canada. This public policy anchor guarantees that spouses bound by restrictive foreign contracts can access the robust financial and equitable protections offered by Canadian family law.
Setting a Bold International Precedent
The decision in Mir v. Sarabi represents a watershed moment for global private international law. Historically, Western courts have struggled to categorize Islamic temporary marriages, often leaving vulnerable spouses entirely without legal recourse.
This BC Supreme Court ruling stands in stark contrast to jurisprudence in other jurisdictions, most notably the Netherlands. In a highly publicized Dutch case evaluating a sigheh marriage, the court acknowledged its validity under Iranian law. However, the court ruled that because a sigheh terminates automatically at the end of its term without the need for formal legal repudiation or a court order, the framework was incompatible with Dutch public order. Consequently, the Dutch court refused to recognize the marriage entirely, leaving the parties without access to civil divorce remedies.
Where the Dutch precedent used the structural inequality and temporary nature of the sigheh to deny recognition and leave spouses vulnerable, the British Columbia approach does the exact opposite. Mir v. Sarabi uses the initial contractual validity of the marriage to assert jurisdiction, thereby utilizing Canadian public policy to grant access to the Divorce Act. This victory provides a highly persuasive framework for family litigators worldwide, proving that while foreign family contracts must be respected at their inception, their dissolution must align with local standards of justice, equity, and the rule of law.
If you are navigating a complex divorce involving cross-border assets, foreign marriage contracts, or jurisdictional disputes, elite legal representation is essential. Contact Cyrus Haghighi at Sinclair Centre Law to secure your rights and explore your legal options.