Circumstances surrounding wedding show she only went through ceremony due to duress, court says
The British Columbia Supreme Court has granted a woman’s application to annul a marriage upon finding that she repeatedly told the man that she did not want to get married and only proceeded with the ceremony because of duress.
In the case, the claimant was a permanent resident of Canada, while the respondent was a New Zealand resident with a visa to visit Canada. Both parties and their families were members of what the claimant called a “religion-based cult group” based in India.
Sometime in October 2022, the parties first met. At that time, the claimant was 18 years old and the respondent was over 30 years old. Within a week of their first interaction, the respondent brought up the possibility of marriage with the claimant, who did not want to marry and who would need her parents’ consent because of her age.
The respondent continued to try to convince the claimant to marry him. She finally agreed on Apr. 25, 2023. The very next day, at a civil marriage ceremony in Abbotsford, BC, attendees included the respondent’s family but none of the claimant’s family members.
After the ceremony, the claimant removed the ring provided by the respondent and returned it to him. The following day, the claimant protested the process surrounding the ceremony and told the respondent that she did not want to be married to him.
The parties never consummated their marriage. The respondent went back to New Zealand in May 2023. The claimant rejected the respondent’s invitation to join him there and blocked his attempts to communicate with her.
In June 2024, the respondent returned to Canada for around 20 days and had two brief meetings with the claimant in Abbotsford. Though the respondent previously said that he wished to dissolve the marriage, he then informed her that a head priest insisted that they be together forever. The claimant refused to change her mind or to meet the respondent again.
The claimant kept her situation with the respondent a secret from her family even though she was living with them. In September 2024, she finally revealed the circumstances surrounding the ceremony.
With her family helping her find counsel, the claimant applied for a court order annulling her marriage to the respondent. She argued that the marriage was voidable at her instance since she entered it due to duress. She added that, even though she was a Sikh, a religious Sikh marriage ceremony did not take place.
The claimant also alleged that, during the process surrounding the ceremony, she was shocked, stressed, overwhelmed, unable to understand what was happening, and being manipulated into a situation that she could not fully grasp.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia granted the application of the claimant to find the marriage voidable. Based on the evidence, the court described the circumstances surrounding the wedding ceremony as follows.
According to the court, over several months beginning when the claimant was 18 years old, the respondent pursued, harassed, and maybe even stalked her. The court found that the respondent asked his mother and sister to support these actions, threatened the reputation of the claimant and her family within their spiritual community, and refused to take no for an answer.
“One does not have to look far to be confronted with the realities of other young people, also in their teens, who have taken drastic actions, including suicide, in the face of such challenges and threats to social standing and reputation,” wrote Justice Ian Caldwell in the court’s ruling.
The court held that the claimant did not truly consent to the marriage, told the respondent that she did not agree to it, and only pushed through with the ceremony due to the duress coming from the respondent and his family, as well as the circumstances surrounding the ceremony.
The court found that, on the day of the ceremony, the respondent and one of his male relatives picked up the claimant from work and took her to the relative’s home, which the claimant found unfamiliar. She was surrounded by his family members but none of her own and was wearing a wedding outfit that his family prepared.
The court noted that, after the wedding, the claimant quickly gave back the ring used for the ceremony, told the respondent that did not want marriage, and kept the situation a secret from her family despite residing with them.
