Background
The Respondent husband and Applicant wife were married in 2013 and separated in 2022. One day before the wedding, each party signed different versions of a marriage contract. No contract was signed by both parties.
The Applicant wife’s position is that each party signed a different contract and thus none of the contracts are binding. She argues that the formal requirement of “meeting of the minds” laid out under s.55 (1) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O 1990, c. F. 3 is not met.
The Respondent husband claims that the marriage contract signed by the wife is valid, and when viewed together with the contract that he signed, form an agreement that governs the division of property. When read together, he argues, both parties waived the right to equalization and claims to property if the marriage were to break down. He further argues that a valid contract exists because both parties had council at the time the contract was signed, together worked on disclosure comprising their respective net worths, and understood the nature of what they were signing.
The Applicant wife also claims that she was of a victim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. She is suing her husband for $500,000 on this matter.
Issues
- Is there a valid and enforceable marriage contract?
- Is the wife owed an equalization payment, spousal support?
- Does the husband owe the wife damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Analysis
Marriage Contract
Justice Kraft found no enforceable marriage contract existed. The court determined that statutory formalities under s.55(1) of the Family Law Act were not met: there was no single contract signed by both parties and properly witnessed. The husband had signed one version witnessed by his lawyer Rochelle Cantor with an Independent Legal Advice (ILA) certificate, while the wife signed a different version witnessed only by her friend, without legal advice present. The versions differed significantly on spousal support waivers and child support provisions. The court declined to “relax” the formal requirements, emphasizing that s.55(1) is unambiguous and domestic contracts must be signed by both parties.
The court also found no “meeting of the minds” on essential terms, given the confusion, last-minute changes, and inadequate legal advice for the wife. Since no valid marriage contract existed, the parties were subject to property equalization under the Family Law Act.
The parties had agreed that if the marriage contract was invalid, the husband would owe the wife an equalization payment of $1,180,563.90. The court ordered this payment to be made within 45 days.
Support
The wife’s claim for spousal support was dismissed. The court found this was not a long-term marriage and the wife was not disadvantaged by marital roles. Her income increased during and after marriage, rising to $140,064 by 2024 while teaching in Attawapiskat. The husband’s reported income was only $15,519. Even if the court were to impute a higher income to the husband ($116,000), the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines would still not require spousal support due to the wife’s higher earnings.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
The court found the husband liable for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Evidence included text messages showing the husband called the wife derogatory names, threatened to call Children’s Aid, made cruel comments about her daughter, and engaged in controlling financial behavior. The wife’s daughter corroborated the abuse, and therapy notes from George Hull Centre supported the claims. The court found the husband’s conduct was flagrant and outrageous, calculated to produce harm, and caused the wife provable emotional distress. The wife was awarded $25,000 in general and aggravated damages. Punitive damages were denied as the conduct was intermittent rather than sustained.
Conclusion
To determine whether a marriage contract is valid, courts will examine if all parties have a meeting of minds. This standard is not to be relaxed as s.55(1) of the Family Law Act is unambiguous as to what will and will not bind parties to a contract.
Spousal support claims may not be successful if the parties do not have long-term marriage, the wife is not disadvantaged from marital roles, and if the husband has significantly less earning capacity.
A party will be successful in a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress if their partner’s conduct is flagrant, outrageous, calculated to produce harm, and causes provable emotional harm. One important caveat is that this case happened a year before Ahluwalia. The Ahluwalia decision, which we have also written a blog about, will likely be more helpful for understanding how a damages claim for emotional distress operates.
Attention Legal Counsel: Professional Mediation Services
When your clients have reached an impasse in settlement discussions, Andrew Feldstein offers third-party mediation services specifically designed for cases where both parties have independent legal representation.
Why lawyers refer cases to Andrew:
- 30+ years family law litigation experience providing courtroom-informed reality testing
- Expertise in complex financial matters including business valuations and professional corporations
- Efficient, structured process that respects counsel’s time and maintains client relationships
- Flexible scheduling including virtual mediation and travel to counsel offices
Cases we handle: Negotiation stalemates, complex asset division, support calculation disputes, parenting arrangements, multi-jurisdictional matters, and post-separation modifications.
Refer your next mediation: Call Andrew directly at 905-415-1635 ext. 255 or email info@separation.ca. Virtual and in-person sessions available throughout the GTA.
Categories: Divorce, Child Support, Spousal Support, Contract