Background

Malekan v. Behzadi arises from the breakdown of a long-term marriage lasting more than twenty-one years. Following separation, the litigation expanded into a complex and highly contested family law proceeding involving property division, foreign assets, support claims, and the enforceability of an Iranian marriage contract containing a mahr obligation.

The Iranian Marriage Contract required the husband to pay the wife a mahr of 1,000 Bahar Azadi gold coins on demand.

Issues Before the Court

The Court was required to determine whether the mahr contained in the Iranian Marriage Contract was enforceable under Ontario law.

Analysis

Is mahr enforceable in Ontario?

Yes. Ontario courts have repeatedly confirmed that mahr agreements can be enforceable as domestic contracts, provided they meet the legal requirements for enforceability. In this case the Court approached the mahr not as a religious obligation, but as a contractual promise to pay a defined sum of money. The cultural or religious origin of the agreement did not disqualify it from enforcement.

The Court focused on whether the mahr was in writing, signed by the parties, and intended to create a binding financial obligation. Those requirements were met. The Court emphasized that Ontario family law does not invalidate agreements simply because they arise from religious or cultural traditions. Spouses are free to structure their financial relationships in culturally meaningful ways, and courts will enforce those choices using neutral legal principles.

Can a mahr agreement be set aside due to cultural pressure or lack of independent legal advice?

No. In this case the husband argued that the mahr should be unenforceable because he felt cultural pressure to agree to it and because neither party received independent legal advice. The Court rejected both arguments.

Ontario courts draw a clear distinction between social or cultural pressure and legal duress. Many marriages involve family expectations and cultural norms. That reality does not amount to coercion unless it deprives a party of meaningful choice. To establish duress, a party must show threats, intimidation, exploitation, or circumstances that override free will. None were present in this case.

Similarly, the absence of independent legal advice does not automatically invalidate a domestic contract. While independent legal advice can be relevant where vulnerability or misunderstanding exists, it is not a strict requirement. The Court found that the respondent understood the nature of the mahr obligation and did not believe it was symbolic or optional. Regret after separation was not a basis to set aside the agreement.

How do Ontario courts classify mahr: property, support, or debt?

The Court treated mahr as a contractual debt, not as property subject to equalization and not as spousal support. This classification is critical. Equalization under the Family Law Act concerns property accumulated during marriage, while spousal support is discretionary and based on entitlement, need, and compensatory principles. Mahr, by contrast, is a fixed obligation agreed to in advance.

Conclusion

Malekan v. Behzadi is a powerful and instructive decision on the enforcement of mahr agreements. The Court confirmed that mahr can be enforceable in Ontario as a contractual debt, regardless of its cultural or religious origin, and that neither lack of independent legal advice nor cultural pressure will invalidate such an agreement absent clear evidence of duress or unconscionability.