How Can I Get a Divorce with a Missing Spouse?

Alternative Service, Substituted Service, and the “Best Efforts” the Court Expects Before Granting the Order

George Lee Law  |  Vancouver  |  604-681-1611

You are ready to move on with your life. The marriage is over, you need a divorce, and the family assets need to be divided. There is just one problem: your spouse has disappeared. Perhaps they left the country. Perhaps they simply stopped returning calls and moved without telling you where. Perhaps you have not heard from them in months—or years.

This is a surprisingly common situation, and it does not mean you are stuck. The law in British Columbia provides a clear pathway to obtain a divorce and divide family property even when your spouse cannot be located. The key is a legal mechanism known as substituted service—sometimes called alternative service—which allows you to serve your court documents on your spouse through a method other than physically handing them over in person. But the court will not grant this order easily. You must first demonstrate that you have made genuine, thorough, and documented efforts to find your spouse and serve them personally.

This article explains the legal framework for substituted service in BC, what the court expects you to do before it will grant the order, and the modern role that skip tracing, social media searches, and digital investigation now play in the process.

Why Service Matters

Service of court documents is one of the most fundamental requirements of our legal system. It exists to protect a basic principle of fairness: before a court can make orders that affect a person’s rights—including orders for divorce, property division, spousal support, and parenting—that person must be given proper notice of the proceeding and a meaningful opportunity to respond.

In BC, the document that starts a family law case in the Supreme Court is the Notice of Family Claim (Form F3). Under Rule 4-1(1) of the Supreme Court Family Rules, B.C. Reg. 169/2009 (the “Rules”), filing a Notice of Family Claim is how a family law case is started. Under Rule 4-1(2), the claimant must then serve the filed notice on the respondent by personal service in accordance with Rule 6-3(2), or by an alternative method if the court makes an order under Rule 6-4(1). In practice, this means the document must be served on the respondent by personal service—meaning it must be physically handed to the person. This is the gold standard. Until proper service is achieved, the court proceeding cannot move forward, no default judgment can be obtained, and no final orders can be made.

But what happens when the person cannot be found?

Substituted Service Under Rule 6-4

Rule 6-4(1) of the Supreme Court Family Rules provides the solution. It states that where it is impracticable to serve a document by personal service, the court may, on application without notice, make an order for substituted service granting permission to use an alternative method of service.

The word “impracticable” is important. It does not mean “impossible.” The court does not require you to prove that personal service is absolutely impossible—only that, in the circumstances, it is not practically achievable. This may be because your spouse has moved to an unknown address, has left the province or the country, is actively evading service, or simply cannot be located despite genuine efforts.

Under Rule 6-4(2), when a document is served by an alternative method, a copy of the entered substituted service order must also be served with the document (unless the court directs otherwise). If the court permits service by advertisement, the advertisement must be in Form F11 (Rule 6-4(3)).

The Legal Test: What the Court Requires

The leading authority on the requirements for substituted service in BC is the Supreme Court decision in Credit Foncier Franco-Canadien v. McGuire (1979), 14 B.C.L.R. 281 at 282, in which van der Hoop L.J.S.C. set out the foundational principles that continue to govern these applications today:

“Before a judge can grant an order for substituted service, then, he must be supplied with facts establishing that personal service cannot be usefully effected or will involve too great a cost. The applicant must show that reasonable steps have been taken to locate the party to be served and, if he has been located, that reasonable efforts had been made to effect personal service. What is reasonable must depend on the circumstances of each case including, for example, the type of relief claimed, the amount involved, the avenues explored to locate the person and the steps taken to effect personal service.”

In Luu v. Wang, 2011 BCSC 1240, Burnyeat J. confirmed that these principles survived the transition from the old Supreme Court Rules to the current Rules. He emphasized that what constitutes “reasonable steps” will depend on the circumstances of each case, including the type of relief sought, the amount involved, and the principle of proportionality now embedded in the Rules. The court will also consider whether effecting personal service would be more expensive “than the thing is worth.”

In practical terms, the court requires evidence of two things:

1. Reasonable steps to locate the respondent: You must demonstrate what you did to try to find your spouse, the sources you consulted, the searches you conducted, and the contacts you made.
2. Reasonable efforts to effect personal service (if located): If you have some information about where your spouse might be—even if it is uncertain—you must show that you attempted personal service and explain why it was unsuccessful.

The “Best Efforts” Checklist: What the Court Expects to See in Your Affidavit

The application for substituted service is typically made by desk order, meaning it is decided by a judge based entirely on the filed documents without anyone appearing in court. This means your supporting affidavit is everything—it is the only evidence the judge will see. If the affidavit is thin, vague, or fails to demonstrate sufficient effort, the application will be refused.

To apply, you file a Requisition, a draft Order, and a detailed supporting Affidavit. The affidavit should address the following categories of effort:

1. Personal Attempts to Locate

• Attending at the respondent’s last known residential address (with dates and results)
• Attending at the respondent’s last known workplace
• Contacting the respondent’s known family members, friends, or associates to inquire about their whereabouts
• Calling, texting, emailing, or messaging the respondent at all known contact numbers and addresses
• Speaking with neighbours at the respondent’s last known address

2. Engaging a Process Server or Skip Tracing Service

The court increasingly expects that an applicant will engage a professional process server or skip tracing service as part of their reasonable efforts. Skip tracing involves using professional databases, public records, credit reporting information, and investigative techniques to locate a person who cannot be found at their known address. A process server’s affidavit detailing their failed attempts to locate and serve the respondent carries significant weight with the court.

The process server’s report should document the specific dates, times, and locations of each attempted service, the investigative steps taken to verify whether the respondent still resides at the address, and any information obtained from neighbours, building managers, or other persons at the location.

3. Public Record and Database Searches

Your affidavit should detail searches of available public records and databases, which may include:

• BC Land Title Office records (to determine if the respondent owns property at any known or new address)
• BC Online court registry searches
• Canada411 and other telephone directory searches
• Corporate registry searches (BC Registry Services) if the respondent is known to be involved in a business
• Voter registration records (where accessible)
• Internet search engines (Google, Bing) for the respondent’s name, phone number, and known email addresses

4. Social Media Searches

This is one of the most important and evolving areas of substituted service law. Courts now routinely expect applicants to conduct thorough social media searches as part of their efforts to locate a respondent. As legal commentators have observed, “the Internet and, more particularly, social networking sites provide a trove of information that can assist in effecting personal service. The cost and time involved in conducting an Internet search will invariably be less than attending at court on a substituted service application.”

Your affidavit should detail searches on all major social media platforms, including:

1. Facebook / Meta: Search for the respondent by name, known email addresses, phone numbers, and through the friend lists of mutual contacts. Note whether a profile was found, when it was last active, and whether the location information is consistent with what you know about the respondent.
2. Instagram: Search by name and any known usernames. Check for recent posts, location tags, or stories.
3. LinkedIn: Particularly useful if the respondent is employed or self-employed. LinkedIn profiles often contain current employer information and geographic location.
4. X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, YouTube, Reddit: Search by name or known usernames. Any recently active account may provide clues about the respondent’s location or daily activities.
5. WeChat, WhatsApp, LINE, Telegram: For respondents who may have connections to communities that use these platforms, note any attempts to contact the respondent through messaging applications. This is particularly relevant for respondents with ties to Asia, where platforms like WeChat are widely used.
6. Google Search: A comprehensive search using the respondent’s full name, known aliases, phone numbers, and email addresses. Note any results that provide updated location or contact information.

If a social media profile is found, take screenshots and exhibit them to your affidavit. Document the profile’s activity level, location information, and any personally identifiable details that confirm it belongs to the respondent. If the search is fruitless, the affidavit should still detail every platform searched and the search terms used. A thorough but unsuccessful social media search is itself valuable evidence that the respondent truly cannot be located.

5. Additional Avenues

Depending on the circumstances, the court may also expect evidence of efforts such as contacting the respondent’s last known lawyer, contacting the respondent’s last known employer or professional regulatory body, checking immigration records (where the respondent may have left Canada), or making inquiries through community organizations, religious institutions, or cultural associations with which the respondent was affiliated.

Types of Alternative Service the Court May Order

Once the court is satisfied that personal service is impracticable and that reasonable efforts have been made, it may grant an order permitting service by one or more of the following methods. The court has broad discretion, and the chosen method will depend on the circumstances and what is most likely to bring the documents to the respondent’s attention:

Method	Description	When Appropriate
Email	Service by sending documents to the respondent’s known email address.	Where you have a verified email address the respondent is known to use regularly.
Service on a Relative or Associate	Delivering documents to a family member, friend, or other person likely to bring them to the respondent’s attention.	Where the respondent’s family is known and accessible, even if the respondent’s own address is unknown.
Mail to Last Known Address	Sending documents by registered or regular mail to the respondent’s last known residential or business address.	Often ordered in combination with other methods. Particularly useful when the respondent may still receive mail at the address.
Social Media Messaging	Sending the documents via private message on Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, WeChat, or other platforms.	Where the respondent has an active, verified social media profile. Courts require evidence the account belongs to the respondent and is actively used.
Newspaper Advertisement	Publishing a notice in Form F11 in a newspaper. This is typically a method of last resort.	Where all other methods are exhausted and the respondent’s location is completely unknown. The court may specify the newspaper and duration.
Posting at Courthouse	Posting a copy of the documents at the court registry for a specified period.	Another method of last resort, sometimes ordered in combination with newspaper advertisement.

Courts frequently order multiple methods in combination—for example, service by email and by mail to the last known address and by Facebook message. The goal is to maximize the likelihood that the respondent will actually receive notice of the proceeding.

Service by Social Media: The Modern Reality

Canadian courts, including courts in BC, have embraced social media as a legitimate method of substituted service. In 101 West Hastings Residential Limited Partnership v. Schweighofer (unreported, BCSC, Vancouver Registry; discussed in Kornfeld LLP, “Service of Process by Facebook and Other Social Media” (March 2012)), the BC Supreme Court permitted service via LinkedIn and Facebook messaging, finding that the defendant’s profiles contained personally identifiable information and were associated with the same geographic location. In Ontario, the decision of K.H. v. M.L., 2017 ONCJ 376, established the key principle. Justice Sherr held that the court must be satisfied that “it can reasonably be expected that the court documents will come to the attention of the respondents.” To satisfy this requirement, you must show that the social media account belongs to the person in question and that they are an active user of the account.

However, social media service is never a first resort. Courts will only consider it after being satisfied that traditional methods of personal service have been exhausted. The applicant must also provide evidence that addresses the court’s potential concerns about authentication: that the account genuinely belongs to the respondent (not a fake or “spoofed” profile), and that the respondent actually uses and monitors the account. Evidence of regular posts, status updates, recently uploaded content, and matching personal details (name, location, workplace, mutual friends) all strengthen the application.

What Happens After Substituted Service Is Ordered

Once the court grants the order for substituted service, you must carry out the alternative method exactly as specified in the order. You then file an Affidavit of Service confirming that you completed service as directed.

The respondent then has 30 days from the date service is deemed to have been effected—which may differ from the date the documents were sent, depending on the method—to file a Response to Family Claim. It is important to note that the substituted service order will usually specify when service is deemed to have been effected (for example, the date the email is sent, or a certain number of days after publication in a newspaper).

If the respondent does not file a response within the prescribed period, you may proceed by way of default. For a divorce, this means proceeding with an uncontested desk order divorce. For property division, the path is more complex: you will generally need to proceed to a hearing or trial where the court will make orders based on the evidence before it, even without the respondent’s participation.

Can You Divide Assets If Your Spouse Cannot Be Found?

Yes. The Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (the “FLA”), gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction to divide family property and family debt under Part 5. The court can make property division orders even in the absence of the respondent, provided that proper service—whether personal or substituted—has been achieved.

Where the respondent does not participate, the court will still require evidence to support the division of property. This means you will need to file detailed financial information, including evidence of the family property, family debt, and any excluded property. You may also need to obtain appraisals, business valuations, or other expert evidence to assist the court in making a fair division.

In addition to property division, the court can make orders for spousal support under Part 7 of the FLA and parenting orders under Part 4, provided proper service has been effected and the respondent has had the opportunity to respond. The court’s ability to make these orders is not contingent on the respondent actually appearing—only on the respondent having been properly notified.

Practical Tips: Getting It Right the First Time

Substituted service applications that are refused by the court cause significant delay and additional cost. The most common reason for refusal is an insufficient affidavit—one that does not demonstrate enough effort. Here are practical tips to maximize your chances of success on the first application:

1. Start documenting from day one. Keep a detailed log of every attempt to contact or locate your spouse, including dates, times, methods, and results. This log becomes the foundation of your affidavit.
2. Hire a process server early. Do not wait until you have exhausted your own efforts. A professional process server’s evidence carries greater weight than your own, and many process servers also offer skip tracing services that can locate individuals through professional databases.
3. Conduct comprehensive social media searches before applying. The court now expects this. An affidavit that says nothing about social media searches may be viewed as incomplete. Search every major platform, take screenshots, and record your search terms.
4. Be specific in your affidavit. Do not simply state “I was unable to find the respondent.” Instead, describe each step: “On [date], I attended at [address] and was advised by the building manager that the respondent had moved out approximately [number] months ago and left no forwarding address.” Specificity is what persuades a judge.
5. Propose an alternative method that makes sense. Your draft order should specify the alternative method you are requesting. Choose a method that is proportionate to the circumstances and that the court can reasonably expect will bring the documents to the respondent’s attention. If you know the respondent uses a particular email address or social media account, propose service through that channel.
6. Consider multiple methods. Courts are more likely to grant an order that uses a belt-and-suspenders approach—for example, email and mail to the last known address and service on a family member—because the combined methods increase the likelihood of actual notice.

Special Considerations: When Your Spouse Has Left Canada

If your spouse has left British Columbia or Canada, additional considerations apply. Under Rule 6-5 of the Supreme Court Family Rules, a Notice of Family Claim may be served on a person outside BC without leave if the court has jurisdiction under section 10 of the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, section 74 of the FLA, or sections 3 or 4 of the Divorce Act. If none of these provisions apply, you must obtain leave of the court before serving outside BC.

For divorce, section 3(1) of the Divorce Act (Canada) requires that either spouse has been ordinarily resident in the province for at least one year immediately preceding the commencement of the proceeding. If you meet this requirement—and you are the one remaining in BC—the court has jurisdiction regardless of where your spouse has gone.

Where the respondent is believed to be in another country, the court may order service through methods appropriate to that jurisdiction, including through international service mechanisms. Social media and email become particularly valuable tools in the international context, where traditional methods of cross-border service can be slow, expensive, and uncertain. The supporting affidavit should detail what is known about the respondent’s international location and any barriers to service in that jurisdiction.

Conclusion

A missing spouse does not have to mean a stalled life. The law provides a clear and well-established process to move forward with a divorce and property division even when your spouse cannot be found. The key is demonstrating to the court that you have done your homework: that you have made genuine, thorough, and well-documented efforts to locate and personally serve your spouse before asking the court for permission to use an alternative method.

In today’s world, those efforts must include not only traditional steps like attending at the last known address and hiring a process server, but also modern investigative tools: comprehensive internet searches, social media investigations, and professional skip tracing. The court expects applicants to use every reasonable tool at their disposal. When the affidavit shows that this has been done, the order for substituted service typically follows.

If your spouse is missing and you need to proceed with a divorce or divide the family assets, the most important step is to consult with a family lawyer who can assess your situation, advise you on the best strategy, and prepare the kind of thorough, persuasive application that will succeed on the first attempt.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. The requirements for a substituted service order depend on the specific facts and circumstances of your situation. If you need to serve a spouse who cannot be located, please consult a qualified family lawyer in your jurisdiction. George Lee Law serves clients in English, Cantonese, and Mandarin throughout Vancouver and the Lower Mainland. Contact us at 604-681-1611 for a consultation.