Well...I can confirm that this is a British uniform (1937 pattern) and taken prior to 1944.
It is a pity that this is a poor scan of the original. Do you have the original to hand?
There are no trade badges on the uniform, only an Arm Of Service strip, and possibly a divisional badge....I would have expected a Regimental shoulder title, but there is none visible.
Has has been pointed out, if foreign serving in the British Army (Free French, Norwegian, Polish etc, and yes, even Canadians!), he would have the distinctions of that country on this type of battledress. I would not expect to see an Arm Of Service strip on foreign nationals, even in British BD. That is peculiar to British units.
All of the Empire, Commonwealth and Dominion troops wore virtually the same uniform....The Canadian one was of a more greener hue of khaki that the British, and the Australians mostly wore a tunic more akin to a WW1 type. This is the same as the "Free" troops under British command until late in the war when the French were eventually equipped with a variation on American kit.
The horseshoe symbol (toes upwards so the luck doesn't run out) is common, and such things can be seen on wedding pics of the period and can be worn when in uniform.
There may be a trace of an early type of shoulder title (up to 1941) on the epaulette, but again we need a good scan to see this properly.
Just because the dress looks expensive, it doesn't necessarily mean that she is Jewish...Many dresses were loaned /hired during the war, and of course, some people had the money and/or connections to "source" a nice wedding dress...He appears to be a private soldier with no rank (unless something turns up on the better scan!) And I would expect an officer to be wearing Service Dress, not Battledress (BD), and of course if an officer in BD he would have his collar open and be wearing a tie...
