The appellant wife appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claims for spousal support and an extension of time to claim a further equalization payment.
The parties had previously signed a separation agreement and an addendum waiving spousal support, but the wife suffered from severe mental illness and was on a disability pension.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge erred by applying Rule 20 to the complex analysis required by Miglin v. Miglin.
The Court also held that the motions judge improperly decided credibility issues and reversed the burden of proof regarding the limitation period extension under section 2(8) of the Family Law Act.
