Marriage annulment for immigration: court says no

She met him on holiday in Cuba, married him, sponsored his move to Canada and paid for the wedding. Shortly after he arrived, she says, the man in love became a completely different person. Convinced she had been trapped in a marriage arranged for immigration purposes, she asked the court, sixteen years later, to annul her marriage. The Superior Court said no. The decision is a reminder of just how exceptional annulment of a marriage remains in Quebec.

People often speak of a “marriage of convenience” or a “sham marriage” to describe a union entered into for the sole purpose of obtaining immigration status. For the person who was deceived, the temptation is strong to simply erase the marriage rather than divorce. Quebec law allows this, but only under strict conditions. The judgment in Droit de la famille — 261510 (2026 QCCS 3668), rendered on September 23, 2026 by the Honourable Éric Dufour of the Superior Court of Québec (District of Laval), is a clear illustration.

The facts: love at first sight in the sun, then disillusionment

In 2008, while on holiday in Cuba, the woman met the man through a hotel employee. The week was idyllic. Wary at first, since she knew some people are lured into traps during vacations in the south, she decided to trust him. She returned in May 2008 for about two weeks and then, before accepting his marriage proposal, lived at his home for three months, from February to May 2009, where she met his family and friends. Reassured, she began the process of sponsoring him with the immigration authorities as soon as she got back. The wedding took place in Cuba on August 5, 2009; she paid for it.

A few weeks later, once the sponsorship was approved, he arrived in Quebec. According to her testimony, his behaviour then changed radically: lack of interest, fits of anger, drinking, lost jobs. One day, she found emails on the computer exchanged with another woman who had stayed in the Caribbean, which, in her view, left no doubt: this woman was pregnant by him, and the two of them were planning to reunite in Canada. When confronted, he told her: “I love you both.” In 2011, she says she learned during a trip to Cuba that the man’s entire circle had known about the plan.

She nonetheless chose to give the relationship another chance. She describes a very difficult married life, marked by arguments and episodes of violence. It was only in 2018 that she asked him to leave the house. In 2025, she filed an application to annul the marriage and claimed $7,000 in damages. He did not file an answer within the prescribed time, so the case proceeded by default. He still appeared at the hearing, where the judge allowed him to make submissions, but not to present evidence.

Annulling a marriage is not the same as divorcing

Two very different things must first be distinguished. Divorce ends a valid marriage. Annulment, on the other hand, declares that the marriage was never validly formed, because an essential condition was missing when it was celebrated (subject to the effects the law preserves in favour of a spouse acting in good faith). One of those conditions is consent: federal law requires the free and enlightened consent of two persons to take each other as spouses.

The judge points out that courts do not grant annulments lightly. Marriage is a fundamental institution with significant consequences (the patrimoine familial, or family patrimony, spousal support and the matrimonial regime). The Quebec Court of Appeal has long insisted that annulment applications be given a “particularly serious” review, so as not to encourage ill-considered unions. And even where the other party does not contest, the court must, on its own initiative if need be, find that a claim is time-barred.

The three-year limit, and its exception

Under article 380 of the Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.), an action for nullity of marriage may not be brought once three years have elapsed since the marriage was solemnized, unless public order is at stake, in particular where the consent of one of the spouses was not free or enlightened. That last clarification was added to the Code in 2016. According to the Court of Appeal, this time limit can be neither interrupted nor suspended. The wife’s alternative argument, that her time limit had been suspended by her husband’s hold over her and by her depression, therefore seemed weak; the judge did not, however, have to decide it.

Here, the marriage dated from 2009 and the application from 2025, so the three-year limit was long past. The wife had to show that public order was at stake. On that point, she succeeded: case law widely recognizes that a marriage entered into for the sole purpose of obtaining Canadian citizenship, with no intention whatsoever of living together, engages public order. Her application was therefore not out of time. She still had to prove it.

Along the way, the judge flags an interesting debate. In 2009, in Droit de la famille — 091179, the Court of Appeal held that not every defect of consent engages public order. One may wonder whether the 2016 amendment, which now expressly refers to free and enlightened consent, changes the picture. The judge raises the question, but notes that until the Court of Appeal rules on it again, the 2009 decision remains the law.

The heart of the case: proving intention at the time of the marriage

The person seeking annulment does not have to meet a higher standard than usual: as in any civil case, she must persuade the court that her version is more likely than not. But what she must prove is delicate: that her spouse never really intended to share a life with her when they married, and that he used her to immigrate. Since there is rarely direct evidence of such an intention, it is usually shown through “serious, precise and concordant” presumptions, meaning a set of significant clues that all point in the same direction.

The court also stresses an essential nuance: the wish to immigrate to Canada can coexist with a genuine intention to live together as a couple. Wanting to immigrate is not, in itself, a ground for annulment. What matters is the total absence of any intention to live as a couple.

Yet, for Justice Dufour, the wife’s evidence “lacks clarity and is not convincing” (our translation). Several factors worked against her:

the parties lived together for nine years, from 2009 to 2018, including after she discovered what she describes as a scheme;
the evidence of the husband’s plan rested essentially on her own testimony: the emails and text messages filed were written in Spanish, with no official translation, and came with summaries she had written herself;
she had embarked on a risky venture, which the case law takes into account: the deterioration of a relationship after arrival in Canada does not, on its own, prove the absence of matrimonial intention on the day of the wedding;
the application was filed only in 2025, seven years after the cohabitation ended, whereas courts tend to annul marriages where the cohabitation was short-lived or where the claim was brought promptly after the facts were discovered.

Even if proven, the nullity would have been “confirmed”

In the alternative, the judge adds a second ground. A defect of consent in principle leads to what Quebec civil law calls “relative” nullity, that is, a nullity designed to protect one particular person. Such a nullity can be cured by confirmation: the protected person waives, expressly or through her conduct, the right to invoke the nullity, provided her intention to do so is certain and evident (articles 1419, 1420 and 1423 C.C.Q.).

By continuing to live with her husband for years after discovering the emails, and by wanting the union to work at all costs, the wife would, according to the court, have confirmed the validity of her marriage. For lack of sufficient evidence, the application for annulment was dismissed, without legal costs. The judge specifies that, had he annulled the marriage, he would have awarded her the $7,000 claimed, as her testimony had persuaded him of the extent of what she had been through.

Why this decision stands out

First, it illustrates a human paradox. A person who believes she has been deceived and who, out of loyalty or hope, chooses to “give the relationship a chance” weakens her annulment claim at the same time. The law may treat that perseverance as confirmation of the marriage. It is harsh, but it is consistent with the stability that surrounds the institution of marriage.

Second, the judgment shows that an uncontested case is not a case won in advance. Even without a defence, the court rigorously examines both admissibility and the evidence. Faced with documents in a foreign language without an official translation, the court may decline to consider their content.

Finally, the decision leaves open a legal question worth watching: did the 2016 amendment to article 380 broaden the situations in which a defect of consent allows a party to escape the three-year limit? Some litigants will argue that the legislature meant to make these claims easier; the position currently followed by the Superior Court, in line with the 2009 decision, nonetheless remains restrictive.

Key takeaways

Act quickly. The three-year limit after the wedding is the rule. Beyond it, you must show that public order is at stake, and the more time passes, the harder the evidence becomes.

Preserve your evidence and have it translated. Emails, messages, testimony from people close to you: keep everything. Any document written in a language other than French or English should come with an official translation.

Continuing to live together has legal consequences. Staying with your spouse after discovering the deception may be interpreted as confirming the marriage.

Divorce is often the safer route. Its conditions are much more flexible: one year of separation is enough. The effects of annulment and divorce are not the same, however (family patrimony, matrimonial regime, support), and the law provides special rules for a spouse in good faith. Getting legal advice before choosing between the two is strongly recommended.

Don’t forget the immigration side. Annulment or divorce does not automatically settle the sponsorship undertakings given to the immigration authorities. It is wise to check your obligations with a professional in that field.

Married for papers? Why the Court refused to annul a marriage after nine years of living together