P.J. Moore

The applicant sought to set aside a marriage contract under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act on the basis that the respondent failed to disclose significant assets and liabilities and that the applicant did not understand the nature and consequences of the agreement.

The court found that the respondent provided only incomplete oral disclosure and did not provide supporting financial documentation.

The applicant had limited English proficiency at the time of signing and did not receive meaningful independent legal advice, particularly given the lawyer’s prior relationship with the respondent and the brief consultation.

The agreement was found to be one‑sided and negotiated in circumstances involving a significant knowledge and power imbalance.

The court concluded that the statutory requirements for setting aside a domestic contract were met and declared the marriage contract invalid and unenforceable.

The plaintiff leasing company sued a co-lessee for a deficiency balance after a leased vehicle was not returned and was later stolen following two lease extensions.

The defendant argued he had only agreed to support the original lease financially and had not consented to the later extensions, which bore signatures found not to be his.

The court held that the defendant functioned as an accommodation surety and that the lease extensions materially varied the principal contract without his consent.

Under the law governing sureties and the lease’s entire agreement clause, such variations discharged the surety from liability.

The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed and the defendant succeeded on his counterclaim for repayment of funds withdrawn from his account after the original lease term.