BACKGROUND
The parties were married in 2016. In 2017, the wife became concerned about the state of their relationship and prepared a Marriage Contract. After being provided with a copy, the husband signed and had the agreement notarized in the presence of a lawyer. The husband did not seek or receive independent legal advice. Nevertheless, the lawyer signed a Certificate of Acknowledgment, confirming that the husband understood the contents of the agreement, was signing it voluntarily, and was not compelled by the wife.
The Marriage Contract stipulated that the parties would remain separate as to property and that neither party would owe spousal support to the other.
The parties eventually separated in 2020 and were divorced in 2021. In 2023, the husband commenced an Application and brought a Motion seeking an Order declaring the Marriage Contract invalid and setting it aside. Justice Black, however, held that the Marriage Contract was valid and enforceable.
The husband now appeals Justice Black’s Order. He asserts that he did not receive full financial disclosure before signing the Marriage Contract and that he signed it under duress in an effort to save the marriage. He argues that the issues of disclosure and duress required oral evidence and a trial to properly resolve conflicts in evidence and credibility, as outlined in Rule 16(6.2) of the Family Law Rules (O. Reg. 114/99).
ANALYSIS
The court rejected the husband’s arguments and upheld Justice Black’s decision for several reasons.
First, the court determined that addressing the validity of the Marriage Contract through a Motion was appropriate and proportionate. The husband initiated the Motion to set aside the Marriage Contract after two judges had indicated that the issue could properly be resolved via Motion. The Court of Appeal emphasized that handling the issue on Motion aligned with Rules 2(3)-(5) of the Family Law Rules, which require cases to be resolved efficiently, with appropriate use of time and resources, and in a manner proportionate to their complexity.
Second, the Court of Appeal found that the Motion was implicitly treated as a Rule 16 summary judgment motion, as both parties understood that the decision on the validity of the Marriage Contract would be final. Under Rule 16(6.1), a judge can weigh evidence, evaluate credibility, and draw reasonable inferences when determining whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial. While Justice Black did not explicitly state that no genuine issue existed, this conclusion was implicit in the reasons provided. Further, the husband failed to identify any material evidence that could have been presented at trial but was absent from the motion.
Third, Justice Black made several key findings of fact based on the husband’s own evidence. These included that the husband had not read the contract before signing it, had substantial legal experience and familiarity with contracts, and was financially secure at the time of the marriage. Justice Black also found that any credibility issues stemmed from contradictions in the husband’s own evidence, such as conflicting statements about his marital history. The Court of Appeal agreed that these findings were sufficient to conclude that the Marriage Contract was valid and that no trial was necessary.