Canada Case Law

Wood v. Wood

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Clause 33 applies to both the claimant's undisclosed Sun Life disability claim and the claimant's misrepresented Telus pension. The claimant is therefore deemed to own those assets equally with the respondent; respondent is entitled to one-half of the Sun Life settlement ($82,500) and one-half of the undisclosed portion of the Telus pension ($89,183.58) totaling $171,683.58, which is offset against the respondent's 2028 equalization payment, reducing it from $272,017.50 to $100,333.92 (interest to be recalculated accordingly). The court alternatively modifies the separation agreement under s.…

Source excerpt

• Separation agreement
• Non-disclosure clause
• Equalization payment
• Variation under family law act s.93
• Pension division
• Spousal support

Read case analysis

Van Der Zee v. Borsboom

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

No binding separation agreement was formed. Of the $50,000 paid to buy the Condominium, $21,500 is excluded property and $28,500 is family property. Family assets net of family debt (line of credit at separation $8,016.36 and property tax arrears $2,943.46) yield $58,540.18 to be divided; respondent is credited occupational rent $16,800 (one‑half of assumed $800 monthly rent for 42 months) prior to division, leaving $41,740.18 to be split equally. Respondent must reimburse claimant $5,000 of instalments received. Claimant may buy out respondent by paying specified amounts within 30 days; othe…

Source excerpt

• Division of family property
• Excluded property (s.85 fla)
• Unequal division (s.95 fla)
• Occupational rent
• Separation agreement
• Enforcement of transfer of title

Read case analysis

Stenner v. Stenner

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Court struck a family claim challenging a separation agreement, finding the pleading non-compliant, unsupported by admissible evidence, and time-barred.

• Separation agreement
• Notice of family claim
• Strike pleadings
• Limitation period under family law act s.198(3)
• Rules compliance (supreme court family rules)
• Capacity/mental competency

Read case analysis

McConnell v. McConnell

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court set aside support waivers in a separation agreement after finding the claimant misled and pressured the respondent, then ordered spousal and child support.

• Separation agreement
• Setting aside agreement
• Spousal support
• Child support
• Retroactivity
• Independent legal advice

Read case analysis

C.M.S. v. M.M.S.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed an application to compel a consent order based on a 2022 agreement and also dismissed a bid to change parenting time from five to seven nights per 14.

• Parenting arrangements
• Consent order
• Separation agreement
• Best interests of the child
• Child support
• Court procedure

Read case analysis

Davies v. Jane

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, set aside the trial judge’s wholesale use of s. 56(4), and modified spousal support under Miglin.

• Separation agreement
• Cohabitation clause
• Miglin analysis
• Section 56(4) family law act
• Section 15.2 divorce act
• Procedural fairness and adequacy of reasons

Read case analysis

LeBlanc v. LeBlanc

Court

Nova Scotia Small Claims Court

The court found a collateral contract existed for payment of half the roof repair (offer, acceptance, consideration and objective intention satisfied) and awarded half the actual repair cost plus fees; the Claimant failed to prove the LIF was concealed, so the Separation Agreement operates as a full and final settlement and the LIF claim is dismissed (matrimonial asset division would be for the Supreme Court if concealment were shown).

Source excerpt

• Separation agreement
• Matrimonial property
• Collateral contract
• Estoppel
• Jurisdiction
• Disclosure of assets

Read case analysis

S.S. v. M.O.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court granted interim parenting orders based on a s. 211 report, and held the father’s challenge to a separation agreement was time-barred under the Family Law Act.

• S.211 report
• Parenting time
• Separation agreement
• Limitations period
• Abuse of process
• Alienation

Read case analysis

Giles v. Giles

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The Separation Agreement satisfied statutory formalities and represented the autonomous bargain of the parties; no evidence established the applicant was vulnerable or that the respondent exploited any vulnerability, lack of independent legal advice did not render the agreement unenforceable because the applicant knowingly proceeded and misrepresented receiving advice, the spousal support waiver did not significantly depart from Divorce Act objectives or reflect unanticipated circumstances, the oral offset agreement regarding joint credit card charges was admissible as part of the parties' en…

Source excerpt

• Separation agreement
• Spousal support
• Equalization payment
• Independent legal advice
• Disclosure
• Unconscionability

Read case analysis

Tsarynny v. Topchiy

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge: the separation agreement was properly set aside under s.56(4) FLA because the appellant failed to disclose a significant asset (the impending multi‑million dollar investment in PostBeyond) and it was unfair to hold the respondent to the bargain; the date of separation was a factual finding entitled to deference and was properly fixed at July 31, 2018; the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Separation agreement
• Non-disclosure
• Date of separation
• Equalization
• Spousal support
• Domestic contracts s.56 fla

Read case analysis