[troutman]

Trial decision:

http://www.heydary.com/resources/cas...n_v_levan.html

“s.56 (4) A court may, on application, set aside a domestic contract or a provision in it,
(a) if a party failed to disclose to the other significant assets, or significant debts or other liabilities, existing when the domestic contract was made;
(b) if a party did not understand the nature or consequences of the domestic contract; or
(c) otherwise in accordance with the law of contract.”

The contract the wife entered into could have resulted in the husband having assets in excess of one hundred million dollars and the wife receiving nothing under the contract and owing him an equalization payment. She significantly compromised her right to spousal support and gave up her rights to share in the increase in value of virtually all of the husband’s assets, save the matrimonial home, if there was one, and potentially the growth in a secondary residence, although that is not clear. She did this without knowing what his income was from all sources and without having any idea of his net worth. In surrendering virtually all of her rights and agreeing to contract out of the provisions of the Family Law Act, she did so without any meaningful information about the husband’s assets and income, coupled with seriously misleading information about his net worth. In my opinion, the marriage contract was not reasonably fair to the wife.

Pursuant to s.5 (6) of the Family Law Act, it is unconscionable to equalize net family properties. The wife is entitled to 15% of the net family property or $3,066,467