Epshtein v. Shvartzman
- Citation
- 2026 ONCA 162
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 4 March 2026
- Posture
- Family / Court of Appeal Hearing on Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Order Dated February 5, 2025
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 4 March 2026
- Posture
- Family / Court of Appeal Hearing on Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Order Dated February 5, 2025
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal was dismissed because the application judge’s factual findings — that the agreement was unclear and the respondent did not understand its nature and consequences — were open on the record and not affected by any legal error or palpable and overriding factual error, therefore the agreement was not enforceable and properly set aside under s.56(4); there was no basis to alter the remedy or order instalment payments.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Order of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 5, 2025 upheld
- Costs awarded to the respondent in the amount of $12,000 (all‑inclusive)
02
Material facts
Parties
Anastasya Epshtein
Respondent Counsel: Brigitta TseitlinEduard Shvartzman
Appellant Counsel: Sage HarveyAmounts and remedies
- Equalization Payment Ordered by Superior Court: CAD 132,000
- Costs Awarded by Court of Appeal: CAD 12,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Family / Court of Appeal Hearing on Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Order Dated February 5, 2025
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the pre‑marital agreement was an enforceable domestic agreement under the Family Law Act
- 02
Whether the agreement should be set aside under s.56(4) of the Family Law Act
- 03
Whether the Court of Appeal should order the appellant to pay the respondent by instalments instead of upholding the equalization order
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued the application judge erred in declining to enforce the parties' agreement and sought relief from this court, including an order permitting payment of the debt in instalments.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued the agreement was unclear and that she did not understand its nature and consequences, such that the application judge properly found it unenforceable and set it aside under s.56(4); she sought enforcement of the equalization order and costs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3
A domestic agreement must be sufficiently clear about its subject matter and consequences to be enforceable.
- 02
Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s.56(4)
Section 56(4) of the Family Law Act permits setting aside an agreement where a party did not understand the nature or consequences of the agreement or where unconscionability exists.
- 03
Appellate review principles (palpable and overriding error standard)
Findings of credibility and fact by a trial judge are entitled to deference on appeal and will not be disturbed absent an error of law or a palpable and overriding error of fact.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the application judge’s factual findings — that the agreement was unclear and the respondent did not understand its nature and consequences — were open on the record and not affected by any legal error or palpable and overriding factual error, therefore the agreement was not enforceable and properly set aside under s.56(4); there was no basis to alter the remedy or order instalment payments.
Obiter and limits
- There was no evidentiary basis to permit payment of the appellant’s debt in instalments over approximately nine years.
- Deference is owed to the trial judge’s assessment of credibility when supported by the record.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed
- Order of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 5, 2025 upheld
- Costs awarded to the respondent in the amount of $12,000 (all‑inclusive)
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal for Ontario · 4 March 2026
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judgment· 4 March 2026
Epshtein v. Shvartzman Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2026-03-04 Neutral citation 2026 ONCA 162 Docket numbers COA-25-CV-0331 Judges Lauwers, Peter D.; Huscroft, Grant; Gomery, Sally A. Subject Family Decision Content
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Epshtein v. Shvartzman, 2026 ONCA 162 DATE: 20260304 DOCKET: COA-25-CV-0331 Lauwers, Huscroft and Gomery JJ.A.
BETWEEN Anastasya Epshtein Applicant (Respondent) and Eduard Shvartzman Respondent (Appellant) Sage Harvey, for the appellant Brigitta Tseitlin, for the respondent Heard and rendered orally: February 26, 2026 On appeal from the order of Justice Kenneth G. Hood of the Superior Court of Justice, dated February 5, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The application judge concluded that an agreement signed by the parties before their marriage was not an enforceable domestic agreement as defined in the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3. Even it were, he found that the agreement should be set aside under s. 56(4) of the Act. As a result, he ordered the appellant to make an equalization payment of roughly $132,000 to the appellant, or half the net equity of the matrimonial home. [2] The appellant contends that the application judge erred in declining to enforce the agreement. We disagree. [3] The application judge found that the agreement was unclear. Among other things, it did not state what property it applied to or address equalization. Beyond this, the application judge found that the respondent did not understand the nature of and consequences of the agreement. [4] These were findings open to the application judge to make on the record, particularly given his assessment of the parties’ respective credibility. We see no error of law or principle or palpable and overriding error of fact in the application judge’s decision. There is no evidentiary basis for this court to order that the appellant’s debt to the respondent be paid in installments over approximately nine years. [5] The appeal is dismissed, with all-inclusive costs of $12,000 to the respondent. “P. Lauwers J.A.” “Grant Huscroft J.A.” “S. Gomery J.A.”
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.