Following the breakdown of a 16‑year marriage, the court addressed property division, child support, and spousal support.
The applicant sought unequal division of the matrimonial home and enforcement of several written agreements purporting to allocate the property to her.
The court held the agreements unenforceable due to lack of independent legal advice, uncertainty, and non‑compliance with statutory requirements, and found that equalization would not be unconscionable under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.
The respondent established entitlement to spousal support primarily on a needs basis due to a serious psychiatric condition limiting employability.
The court ordered ongoing and retroactive spousal support, modest retroactive child support, and equal division of the matrimonial home proceeds.
