The Applicant sought to enforce an informal handwritten settlement document signed by the parties regarding property and support issues.
The Respondent argued it was merely a framework.
The court applied contract law principles, finding that the document lacked an essential term regarding the method and timing of the $650,000 payment.
Despite the parties' subjective belief of a final agreement, an objective assessment of their conduct revealed an "agreement to agree" on this crucial term.
Consequently, the document was deemed unenforceable, and the Applicant's motion for summary judgment was dismissed, requiring the matter to proceed to a full trial.
The court also found that the formal requirements of s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act were met, as the agreement was in writing, signed, and witnessed by sworn testimony.