The appellant wife appealed a motion judge's decision to enforce an accepted offer to settle an equalization payment for $35,000.
The appellant argued the motion judge erred by enforcing the settlement despite the respondent husband's failure to provide updated financial disclosure for her proposed valuation date.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge made no error in principle and correctly concluded the appellant had sufficient disclosure to appreciate the compromise she was making when she offered to settle.
