Law360 Canada ( April 10, 2026, 11:48 AM EDT) -- Appeal by Riddle from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal which allowed in part an appeal. In 2008, Riddle’s spouse, Imanpoorsaid, informed her that he was going to Toronto, which was not unusual in his line of work. However, he never returned. A police investigation revealed that Imanpoorsaid never went to Toronto and his family has not heard from him since. Imanpoorsaid was the owner of a life insurance policy with ivari. Eight years after his disappearance, Riddle applied for a declaratory judgment of Imanpoorsaid’s death in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code of Québec relating to the absence regime. Ivari opposed the pronouncement of a declaratory judgment of death, suggesting that Imanpoorsaid had fled. Despite this, Riddle’s application was granted. Ivari applied to the Superior Court for annulment of the declaratory judgment and presented new evidence that Imanpoorsaid was alive and living in Iran. That application was not served on Imanpoorsaid. The trial judge annulled the declaratory judgment of death finding on a balance of probabilities and considering the new evidence, that Imanpoorsaid was still alive. The Court of Appeal substantially upheld the decision. Riddle argued that the courts below erred in finding that ivari’s failure to serve the proceeding for annulment of the declaratory judgment of death on Imanpoorsaid did not entail the dismissal of its proceeding and the nullity of the subsequent decisions. She argued that both courts erred in determining the applicable legal framework for proving the return of a person declared dead which required unquestionable proof that the person was currently alive. Ivari argued that the courts below properly held that the failure to effect service did not warrant the dismissal of its application, and that they correctly interpreted the concept of return, for which a specific form or degree of proof was not required....