This blog post was written by Mohena Singh, Associate at Fasken LLP.

Cross-border capacity and guardianship issues are becoming increasingly common as families, assets, and caregiving arrangements span jurisdictions. In Abitbol v. Abitbol, 2026 ONSC 1636, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice confirmed that a foreign guardianship order issued outside Canada may be recognized and enforced in Ontario under common law principles, even where the resealing provisions of Ontario’s Substitute Decisions Act (“SDA”) may not apply.

The respondent was an 82-year-old individual residing in Israel who had lived there since 1993. He had been found incapable of managing property under Israeli law, and his daughter was appointed as his guardian of property and personal care by an Israeli court in 2024.

The respondent held some bank accounts and investments in Ontario. However, the guardian was unable to gain access to those Ontario-based assets to fund the respondent’s ongoing care in Israel. The applicant therefore sought an Ontario order resealing the Israeli guardianship order or, alternatively, recognizing the Israeli order as a valid foreign judgment enforceable in Ontario.

Section 86 of the SDA permits the resealing of certain foreign guardianship orders, but only where the order originates from another Canadian province, territory, or a prescribed jurisdiction. No list of prescribed non-Canadian jurisdictions has ever been enacted. As a result, the Court had to determine whether, and on what basis, an Ontario court can recognize a guardianship order made outside Canada.

The Court confirmed that section 86 of the SDA did not apply because Israel is not a prescribed jurisdiction. Where the SDA is silent, the Court held that common law principles governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments apply.

The Court held that a foreign guardianship order may be recognized where the order is final, there is a real and substantial connection between the foreign jurisdiction and the individual, the order was not obtained by fraud or a breach of natural justice, and enforcement would not violate Canadian public policy.

The Court found a real and substantial connection between the parties and issues to Israel, noting that the respondent had lived there for over 30 years, the applicant guardian resided there, the application was commenced where the respondent lived, and the majority of the respondent’s assets were located in Israel.

The Court was also satisfied that the Israeli order was not obtained by fraud or in breach of natural justice, and that Israel’s guardianship regime mirrors Ontario’s SDA in its oversight, reporting, and supervision requirements. As a result, recognition of the order did not offend Canadian public policy.

The Court granted the application and ordered that the Israeli guardianship order be recognized as a valid foreign judgment and treated as a valid order of the Ontario court, authorizing financial institutions and government agencies in Ontario to act on the guardian’s instructions.

This case reaffirms that foreign guardianship orders from outside Canada can be recognized in Ontario under common law principles even when the foreign order does not fall within the perimeters of the legislation as long as there is a real and substantial connection between the foreign jurisdiction and the individual and the order is not obtained by fraud or a breach of natural justice.

Thank you for reading.