The appeal concerned whether a pre-1986 marriage contract removed designated property from the equalization regime under the Family Law Act.
The court held that the agreement, read as a whole, clearly provided that the property would remain the wife's alone and would prevail over the Family Law Reform Act or any successor legislation.
The court distinguished prior authorities where contractual wording was materially different.
Applying s. 70(3), the court concluded that the contract deemedly excluded the property from s. 5 equalization.
The appeal was allowed with costs throughout.
