Is Mehrieh enforceable in British Columbia Courts?

Persian clients who got married in Iran and moved to Canada, often struggle with the subject of Mehrieh in their divorce. Many clients ask Raha Seyed Ali, an experienced Iranian Canadian lawyer, whether Mehrieh claim is enforceable or it should be included in their Notice of Family Claim.

• What is Mehrieh?

Mehrieh (also spelled Mahr or Meher) is a term used in Islamic law to refer to the amount of money or in most cases gold coins that a groom is required to pay to his bride in a marriage contract. The payment of mehrieh serves as a symbol of the husband's commitment to supporting his wife financially.

• What is the difference between Mehrieh and Dowry?

Mehrieh is often contrasted with dowry, which is a similar concept found in many cultures around the world, that involves a transfer of wealth from the bride's family to the groom.

• Is Mehrieh enforceable in British Columbia Courts?

Mehrieh is considered to be a contractual term as part of a marriage agreement. In British Columbia, a marriage contract (also known as a prenuptial agreement or a cohabitation agreement) is a legal document that sets out the rights and obligations of each spouse in the event of a separation or divorce. It must be signed by both spouses and witnessed by at least one person. BC courts have treated this issue on a case-by-case basis.

These are examples of cases that court has enforced or refused to enforce the Mehrieh in BC:

In N.M.M. v. N.S.M., 2004 BCSC 346, the court enforced a $51,250 meher from an Ismaili marriage agreement where the husband asserted that the meher was merely symbolic and he did not read the document when he signed it. The court states:

[28] I find as a fact that the Husband was aware of and understood the content of the Maher, including the amount stipulated by it. I am satisfied he understood and accepted that the Maher was a legally binding document. Both parties wished to marry in the Ismaili faith, and they understood and accepted that a condition of doing so was to agree to the Maher.

In Delvarani v. Delvarani, 2012 BCSC 162, the court did not enforce the meher as it was found that the parties had not reached an agreement to payment upon the dissolution of the marriage. Specifically, the amount of the meher was 3,000 gold coins. The court found that it was difficult to believe the husband would commit to such a large amount of money in addition to the obligations under BC law.

In Mohammadi v. Mohammadi, 2016 BCSC 1873, the court declined to find a binding agreement under the FRA for an Iranian meher of 700 gold coins, valued at approximately $276,000 Canadian dollars. The wife based her dowry claim on the marriage portion and a proposed acknowledgement by the husband that was denied. The husband claims that the wife never claimed the dowry until litigation and was not planning to claim it in Iran. Further to that, the Claimant had no such ability to pay the Meher at the time of signing.

Sharifpour v. Rostami, 2018 BCSC 681 dealt with an Iranian Marriage Contract which contractually obliged the Claimant to pay 2,000 Iranian Full Bahar Azadi Gold coins, worth approximately $800,000 Canadian dollars. The Claimant stated that the gold coin reference was a symbol of his respect. Here, the courts were not satisfied that the Iranian Marriage Contract bound the Claimant and found it to be essentially a pre-nuptial agreement within s. 93 of the FLA. The court was not satisfied that the Claimant would have committed to paying this, as it was almost double his worth at the time of signing. The court goes on to state that this contract was entered into because the Respondent was pregnant and wanted to be able to travel to Iran and be treated as a married couple. The court further states that even if it was binding, they would set it aside as being significantly unfair.

It appears that most recent cases have not enforced the Mehrieh Claim in BC. When assessing this claim in a family matter, the court will consider if the amount of Mehrieh is significantly high considering the circumstances and essentially making the agreement significantly unfair.

The legal test to set aside the marriage agreement is stated in s. 93 of the Family Law Act. Court may set aside the agreement if satisfied that one or more of the following circumstances existed when the parties entered into the agreement:

1. a spouse failed to disclose significant property or debts, or other information relevant to the negotiation of the agreement;

2. a spouse took improper advantage of the other spouse’s vulnerability, including the other spouse’s ignorance, need or distress;

3. a spouse did not understand the nature or consequences of the agreement;

4. other circumstances that would, under the common law, cause all or part of a contract to be voidable.

The Supreme Court may set aside or replace with an order made under this Part all or part of an agreement if satisfied that none of the circumstances described in that subsection existed when the parties entered into the agreement but that the agreement is significantly unfair on consideration of the following:

· (a) the length of time that has passed since the agreement was made;

· (b) the intention of the spouses, in making the agreement, to achieve certainty;

· (c) the degree to which the spouses relied on the terms of the agreement.

Book a consultation with Raha Seyed Ali, one of the top-rated Iranian Divorce Lawyers in Vancouver with law degrees from both Iran and Canada’s top law schools to assess your divorce case involving Mehrieh claim. Raha has years of experience dealing with high-net-worth international assets, claims of Mehrieh and Iranian divorce.