The applicant sought to set aside a binding agreement in principle regarding the transfer and sale of franchised restaurants, claiming lack of disclosure and frustration of contract due to the franchisor's requirements.
The applicant also sought interim spousal and child support.
The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application.
The court found that the applicant had access to competent legal and financial advice during negotiations and that there was no significant lack of disclosure.
The court also held that the franchisor's requirements did not frustrate the contract.
Applying the Miglin framework, the court found the agreement remained consistent with the objectives of the Divorce Act.
The court granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the application.
