The Plaintiff previously filed a Statement of Claim for divorce and applied for a desk divorce. The Court considered whether the Plaintiff had been properly served in accordance with Rules 11.26 and 11.27, as the Respondent appeared to reside in the Philippines.

The Plaintiff was previously granted a substitutional service Order allowing him to serve the Respondent a Statement of Claim for divorce and all other documents in the Action by serving the Respondent by email to a specific email address. The substitutional service Order was granted on the basis that “the country in which the Respondent resides is a Contracting State to the Hague Service Convention, but the Respondent’s mailing address is not known”.

Rule 11.26 outlines the methods for service outside Alberta. The Court noted that Rule 11.26 requires documents to comply with Division 8 of the Rules where a document is to be served in a jurisdiction to which the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (the “Hague Service Convention”) applies. The Court reviewed cases confirming that validating service that does not comply with the Hague Service Convention would undermine the purpose of the convention as it would no longer be a comprehensive authority for service abroad involving its signatories.

The Court confirmed that the Hague Service Convention does not apply where the recipient’s address is not known. However, the Court determined that a party is required to make reasonably diligent efforts to learn the address of the intended recipient rather than simply submitting that the recipient’s address is not known. Upon review, the Court determined that:

• The evidence before the Court did not demonstrate that the Plaintiff made reasonably diligent efforts to learn the address of the Defendant; and
• The Plaintiff’s email service failed to comply with the Hague Service Convention, which allows a state to consent to methods of service within its boundaries. There was no evidence that email was an authorized method of service in the Philippines.

The Court determined that the Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 12.55, which requires a Statement of Claim for divorce to be served personally unless the Court otherwise orders. The Court ordered the Plaintiff to re-serve the Defendant in accordance with the Hague Service Convention and Rules before re-submitting his desk divorce Application.