Kitchen desk separation agreements binding below proper circumstances

Article content material

Many {couples} who’ve entered right into a separation settlement, marriage contract or cohabitation settlement later ponder whether they made the proper resolution. Some ignore their self-doubt and easily dwell with the deal they made. Others search authorized recommendation about whether or not they can get out of their settlement.

Article content material

Only a few — particularly those that have been married a mere three years — have the validity of their separation settlement determined by Canada’s Supreme Court docket.

Article content material

However James and Diana Anderson of Saskatchewan did simply that. On Could 12, 2023, the Supreme Court docket determined the destiny of the couple’s “kitchen desk” settlement, which was written by Diana at a gathering with James and two mates, and signed by the husband on the spot.

The Andersons didn’t have any kids, and ended their quick marriage in 2015. The settlement Diana ready mentioned every of them would hold their very own property and quit their rights to the opposite’s property besides for his or her house and family contents, which they collectively owned. The settlement didn’t cope with spousal help.

Article content material

Article content material

The settlement was signed and witnessed by the 2 mates who initiated the couple’s assembly with the hope that the Andersons would reconcile. Neither partner had impartial authorized recommendation earlier than signing the settlement. Nor did both present monetary disclosure.

Diana later filed for divorce. James then requested the court docket to equalize their household property below Saskatchewan’s Household Property Act, arguing that the settlement was signed with out authorized recommendation or monetary disclosures, and that he had been below duress.

The trial decide set the settlement apart, gave no weight to the settlement and required that Diana pay about $90,000 to James.

The Saskatchewan Court docket of Enchantment disagreed with the trial decide and located that the settlement was binding, counting on the Supreme Court docket’s evaluation in Miglin vs. Miglin, which set out the steps below the Divorce Act {that a} court docket ought to take when deciding whether or not to order spousal help within the face of an settlement releasing such help.

Article content material

The Saskatchewan Court docket of Enchantment determined that James ought to pay Diana a property settlement of about $5,000.

Writing for the court docket, Justice Andromache Karakatsanis determined that the phrases of the settlement must be upheld, however made a special resolution concerning the date at which the Andersons’ property must be valued, finally deciding that Diana ought to pay James about $43,000.

Karakatsanis’ resolution was primarily based upon the particular language of Saskatchewan’s Household Property Act.

Canada’s Structure Act directs that points associated to divorce (the termination of a wedding, parenting points, youngster help and spousal help) should be determined below the federal Divorce Act. Against this, jurisdiction for property and civil rights below the Structure Act is given to the provinces and territories.

Article content material

The result’s that after separation, a married couple’s property is distributed primarily based solely on the laws within the province the place the couple resided at separation.

In Saskatchewan, “interspousal contracts” (contracts which might be in writing, witnessed and a written acknowledgement is signed by the partner in entrance of a lawyer) are presumptively binding. Regardless of this, kitchen-table agreements could also be given weight even when the formalities weren’t noticed.

Karakatsanis discovered that the Andersons’ settlement was quick, uncomplicated and mirrored their intention to make a clear break. There was no monetary disclosure or authorized recommendation, but when James couldn’t level to any prejudice he skilled due to the dearth of disclosure and recommendation, the settlement was not routinely invalid.

Article content material

The unanimous court docket, nevertheless, disagreed solely with the Court docket of Enchantment’s reliance on Miglin, confirming {that a} resolution concerning the validity of an settlement should be made primarily based on the specifics of the provincial statute, not on the Divorce Act standards as interpreted in Miglin.

However, Karakatsanis agreed with the Court docket of Enchantment, saying the trial decide ought to have given the settlement critical consideration.

The Supreme Court docket additionally distinguished between agreements referring to property (which look retrospectively at a pair’s marriage) and people agreements that relate to spousal help, which can be modified when there’s a change in circumstances (as a result of help is mostly potential in nature).

Article content material

By making this distinction, the Supreme Court docket instructed that property agreements usually tend to be upheld than these referring to help.

The court docket confirmed its earlier choices about the necessity to accord applicable deference to a few’s settlement given the essential aims on separation of self-sufficiency, autonomy and finality.

However, the Supreme Court docket cautioned that “courts should assessment home contracts with explicit sensitivity to the vulnerabilities that may come up within the household regulation context, with out presuming that spouses lack the company to contract just because the settlement was negotiated in an emotionally disturbing context.”

Purchasers usually ask their household attorneys whether or not their settlement is binding. The reply? It relies upon.

Laurie Pawlitza is a senior accomplice within the household regulation group at Torkin Manes LLP in Toronto. [email protected]

Article content material