In a recent decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a motion judge’s ruling that a marriage contract between separated spouses was valid and enforceable. The case, Singh v. Khalill, underscores the importance of due diligence when entering into domestic agreements and highlights the court’s preference for efficiency in family law disputes. Here’s a closer look at the case and the key lessons it offers.
The Background
This case arose as a result of a dispute between separated spouses about the enforceability of their marriage contract.
The parties were married in 2016. In 2017, the wife, concerned about the state of their relationship, decided to create a marriage contract. The agreement was drafted by a lawyer who was a friend of the wife. After reviewing the document, the husband signed it and had it notarized in the presence of a lawyer. The husband did not seek or receive independent legal advice. However, the lawyer provided a Certificate of Acknowledgment, confirming that the husband understood the terms of the agreement, signed it voluntarily, and was not under any duress or coercion from the wife.
The marriage contract stipulated the following two key provisions:
- Neither party would owe the other spousal support upon separation, and
- The parties would remain separate as to property.
The parties subsequently separated in 2020 and were divorced in 2021. In 2023, the husband filed an application seeking to invalidate the marriage contract and have it set aside. The validity of the marriage contract was argued at a motion before Justice Black, who ultimately determined that the contract was valid and enforceable.
The husband appealed Justice Black’s Order. In support of his claim, the husband claims that he did not receive full disclosure before signing the marriage contract and that he was under duress, signing the agreement in an attempt to save his marriage. He argued that these are issues that require oral evidence. He also argued that the validity of the marriage contract should not have been determined on motion, but rather through a trial to address conflicting evidence and credibility concerns, in accordance with Rule 16(6.2) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99.
The Court of Appeal’s Decision
The Court of Appeal found no error with the motion judge’s conclusion. In so doing, the Court of Appeal found:
- The Issues did not Require a Trial: Relying on the principle of proportionality under the Family Law Rules, which supports resolving matters efficiently based on their complexity, the court found no substantial issue that required a trial. Here, the husband had opted for a motion after two judges had indicated that the issue could properly be resolved via motion and only on the day of the motion itself did the husband make what the motion judge referred to as the “late breaking suggestion” that the matter be heard as a trial.
- The Motion was treated as a Rule 16 Summary Judgement Motion: The court noted that the motion was effectively treated as a Rule 16 summary judgment motion, as both parties acknowledged that the ruling on the validity of the marriage contract would be final. It further noted that, under Rule 16, a judge is permitted to weigh evidence, assess credibility, and draw reasonable inferences in determining whether a genuine issue exists that warrants a trial. Since the husband did not present any material evidence that could have been introduced at trial but was unavailable for the motion, the court determined that a full trial was unnecessary.
- Failure to Read the Contract: The court noted that the husband “had not bothered” to read the marriage contract before signing it. Despite being fully capable of understanding contracts — having read "thousands" of them — the husband chose not to review its terms.
- Legal Experience and Financial Stability: The court noted that the husband had significant legal experience and substantial assets and income at the time of the marriage. These factors made it unlikely that he was unaware of the financial implications of the contract.
- Credibility Issues: The husband’s contradictory statements during the proceedings damaged his credibility, further undermining his claim. The court noted that the inconsistencies in his evidence made his arguments less compelling.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal found that the marriage contract was valid and enforceable, and confirmed the motion judge’s decision to dismiss the claim.
Key Takeaways
This decision serves as a reminder that parties seeking to contest domestic contracts are expected to have acted with care when entering such contracts. Parties’ lack of diligence in agreeing to marriage contracts — in the absence of an inequality of bargaining power or lack of sophistication — will be considered in, and seemingly weigh heavily against, a determination of unenforceability. It reinforces the importance of proportionality and efficiency in adjudicating family law disputes, and that courts will be inclined to summarily adjudicate meritless claims, without requiring parties to undergo a full trial.
