Paul E. McInnis

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act, alleging material misrepresentation and non-disclosure by the respondent regarding the valuation of a company.

The respondent had received letters of intent to purchase the company and was negotiating a buyout of his partner's interest while simultaneously negotiating the separation agreement with the applicant, without disclosing this information.

The court found that the respondent's failure to disclose this information constituted a material misrepresentation, both subjectively and objectively, and breached the duty of utmost good faith in family law negotiations.

The court exercised its discretion to set aside the entire separation agreement, declining to re-write it or address the oppression remedy under the Business Corporations Act at this stage.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment upholding a prenuptial agreement.

She argued the agreement should be set aside due to inadequate financial disclosure, lack of independent legal advice, duress, and a change in circumstances post-marriage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had adequate knowledge of the respondent's finances, received proper independent legal advice, and was not under duress when signing the contract.

The court also upheld the trial judge's evidentiary ruling admitting a contemporaneous memorandum.

The appellant and respondent had an extramarital affair resulting in two children.

In 1974, the appellant executed a release discharging the respondent from all claims in exchange for a lump sum.

Twenty-six years later, the appellant brought an action seeking rescission of the release, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's decision to strike the claim under Rule 21, finding that the appellant's lengthy delay in bringing the equitable claims constituted acquiescence, making the action certain to fail.

The appellant brought an action against the respondent, with whom she had a secret extra-marital affair for 14 years, claiming damages for failure to provide adequate child support.

The appellant had signed a release in 1974 for $27,500.

The motions judge struck out the appellant's claims under Rule 21.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the appellant's 26-year delay in seeking rescission of the release constituted acquiescence under the doctrine of laches, making her equitable claims certain to fail.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the characterization of funds from a non-competition agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that money paid and to be paid under the non-competition agreement constitutes property for the purposes of establishing the appellant's net family property.