Ms. Molina, I have a question for you. It's a question I asked the bureaucrats when they were here.
You have a situation, well it's not a hypothetical situation, but it's a situation where the man says there was fraud involved. The wife left and it was fraudulent. The wife says no, it was physical and mental abuse.
There are three different areas. There could be the criminal aspect if there's physical abuse. That's assault and that's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Then we have a matrimonial court. I have no idea what goes on in the civil code but presumably it's similar to Ontario, which would be on the balance of probabilities as to who is telling the truth. Then we have immigration. My understanding is it wouldn't even be, it may not even be, a judicial decision. It might be an administrative decision as to who is telling the truth.
Do you see a problem there? I am looking at strange conflicts of law.
You could even have conceivably different decisions. Someone could say the husband is telling the truth. Someone could say the wife is telling the truth.