On April 10, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada released their judgment in Riddle v. ivari, 2026 SCC 9, which dealt with the unusual circumstance of a procedural defect where the respondent had not, or attempted to, serve application materials on an individual.
The background cases are peculiar. One morning, Hooshang Imanpoorsaid informed his spouse, Deborah Riddle, that he had to travel to Toronto for business. He departed their Montreal suburb home driving his car and taking a few pieces of luggage. This was nothing out of the ordinary for Mr. Imanpoorsaid who worked as an insurance and mutual fund representative. However, he did not return from his supposed business trip. Ms. Riddle reported his disappearance, with a police investigation revealing that Mr. Imanporsaid had never gone to Toronto. He was not seen by his family again.
After an eight-year absence, Ms. Riddle applied to the Superior Court of Quebec to obtain a declaratory judgment of Mr. Imanpoorsaid’s death. The insurance company with which Mr. Imanpoorsaid had taken out a life insurance policy, ivari, opposed Ms. Riddle’s application, arguing the circumstances of his disappearance suggested he had fled rather than died. Nevertheless, the judge hearing Ms. Riddle’s application granted the declaratory judgment as the law only contemplated an absence of seven years without the person giving news of themselves.
Ivari subsequently applied to the Superior Court of the judgment declaring Mr. Imanpoorsaid deceased, presenting new evidence indicating that he had actually been living in Iran ever since leaving Quebec. The trial judge annulled the declaratory judgment of death and held that ivari had established the “return” of the person declared deceased. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal of Quebec.
Ms. Riddle appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing in part that ivari’s failure to serve Mr. Imanpoorsaid should lead to a dismissal of its proceeding and the nullity of the decisions at the Superior Court and Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court of Canada rejected this argument. While acknowledging that service is a cardinal rule of procedural law, there are certain circumstances which warrant exceptions. The trial judge had rightly noted that if ivari’s application had actually been served on Mr. Imanpoorsaid, and he had intervened in the proceeding, his presence would have shown that he was in fact alive and led the Superior Court to make the same ruling. Consequently, as the Court of Appeal also concluded, the Supreme Court held that while it would have been preferable and prudent for ivari to attempt to notify the proceeding to Mr. Imanpoorsaid, that could not justify intervention by the court.
