An Alberta divorce action will continue despite an earlier proceeding between the same spouses in Türkiye, after a judge rejected the argument that the foreign case automatically took priority.
In Agar v Agar, 2026 ABKB 736, dated October 22, 2026, Justice C.L. Arcand-Kootenay of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta found that both spouses met the Divorce Act’s residence requirement and that Türkiye had not been shown to be the clearly more appropriate forum.
The judge separated the divorce claim from unresolved parenting and child-support claims, allowing the father to apply separately for a divorce without the mother’s consent. The ruling did not itself grant a divorce, change the existing interim parenting or support orders, or restrain either party from participating in the Turkish proceeding.
Two proceedings, but no international first-to-file rule
The spouses married in Türkiye in 2011 and later settled in Alberta with their children. They separated in 2023. The father began divorce proceedings in Türkiye that December and filed the Alberta action in October 2024.
The mother participated in the Turkish case and opposed having the divorce granted in Alberta. She relied on section 3(2) of the Divorce Act, arguing that the Alberta proceeding had to be discontinued because the Turkish case came first. At the same time, she sought final parenting orders and ongoing and retroactive child support in Alberta.
Arcand-Kootenay held that section 3(2) resolves competing divorce proceedings in Canadian courts with jurisdiction under section 3(1). A foreign court does not derive its authority from that provision, so the first-filed rule did not require the Alberta action to end.
Section 3(1) gives the court divorce jurisdiction where either spouse was habitually resident in the province for at least the year immediately before the action began. Both spouses independently met that requirement. Alberta had been the centre of their settled lives throughout the relevant year.
The court also had jurisdiction under section 4 over the parenting and support claims advanced in connection with the Alberta divorce proceeding.
Family connections and existing orders favoured Alberta
Having jurisdiction did not end the inquiry. The mother could still seek a stay by establishing that another forum was clearly more appropriate, a principle known as forum non conveniens.
The judge considered the earlier Turkish filing and the fact that evidence had been heard there. But the court had not received the Turkish pleadings, a procedural chronology or reliable evidence showing precisely what remained to be decided. The mother’s concern about money and time already spent in Türkiye did not establish that it was the better forum.
The family’s current connections favoured Alberta. Both spouses and their children lived there, the evidence relevant to parenting and support was principally there, and Alberta courts had already made interim orders and overseen substantial case-management steps.
The mother’s proposal would divide closely connected issues between two countries. The judge found that this could increase expense and delay and create a risk of inconsistent decisions, particularly because a Turkish court granting a divorce could also address related support and custody matters.
The mother had also submitted the parenting and support claims to Alberta’s authority by seeking affirmative relief and participating in those claims on their merits. That submission, called attornment, reinforced the court’s authority over the related claims. It did not replace or expand the separate statutory requirements for divorce jurisdiction.
Foreign proceedings were not restrained
Both parties supplied letters from Turkish lawyers, but neither author was qualified as an expert before the Alberta court. The judge gave the letters limited weight, accepting only the shared proposition that a Turkish court granting a divorce has authority to address related custody and support.
The letters did not establish that such orders must be made in every case or would be made in this one. The judge made no order restraining the Turkish proceeding: an anti-suit injunction would require a separate analysis and findings the application did not support. Recognition in Canada of any future Turkish order was also left undecided.
A separate divorce application still needs proper evidence
Separating the divorce claim allows marital status to be addressed without waiting for every parenting and support dispute to conclude. But the later application must still meet sections 8 and 11 of the Divorce Act, including the requirement for reasonable child-support arrangements.
The existing interim support order supported separation of the claims, but the judge made no final statutory finding permitting a divorce. The court hearing the later application must assess the evidence then filed and any applicable statutory bar.
The final parenting, final child-support and retroactive-support claims remain reserved for later determination. The interim orders continue until further order, and each spouse must bear their own costs of this application.
