greetings,
1.Assuming that the law of common place of residence( the Turkish law) is applicable, then : The seperation of assets rule is -as a rule- valid, save another principle was not agreed upon--The new rule of the Civil Act, participation on the acquired assets, is normally under consideration for the marriages which are concluded after the entry into force of the new law or for the spouses married before this new law but agreed on the participation principle during 1 year after this said date-- Consequently, as in legal scope your father's wife seems to have the house or the land.However if your father should prove the contrary that he in fact bought these with documents the judge may rule the transfer of them on his name in the divorce case.
2.the acquisition of real estate by the foreigners was subjected to mainly two conditions:
a)the reciprocity : which means that the alien may acquire land providing his/her country has conferred this right to Turks or Turkish subjects.(Does Canada seems to do this?I think not)
b.Several preventive rules based on the public order consideration(for example the law on villages states that foreigners cannot possess land in the rural areas in a village..)
SO, If these mentioned conditions were met, your father could have had the ownerships, unless the transactions should be void. that means that your father may claim the money paid and the donation of the assets to the wife inherently beomes illegal.
A little bit confusing as it is expected to be cause the rules of international nature are in question, you would better consult to a Turkish attorney.