Case information

Family law – Family assets – Parties signing marriage agreement and separately accumulating wealth during marriage – Wife relinquishing career to fulfill parental responsibilities while husband achieving success in business - Wife seeking reapportionment of assets – Whether “fair” reapportionment of property division subject to marriage agreement should be made through lens of agreement – Whether contingent trust interest is family asset subject to property division

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Prior to their marriage in 1989, the husband and wife signed a marriage agreement, the primary purpose of which was to protect the wife’s contingent interests in family trusts and her potential inheritance. It established that the parties would be separate as to property unless the property was acquired in joint names. The husband’s primary asset at the time was the small law firm he had started after finishing law school. Their first child was born in 1993 and when it became apparent the child had several serious health issues, the wife abandoned any plans of returning to her career. Their second child was born in 1996. The husband left the matrimonial home in 1999 and thereafter, the parties never resumed cohabitation. The husband paid all of the household expenses for the wife and children. The husband’s law practice became very successful. He was a high income earner and acquired significant assets. The husband commenced a family claim and January 2015 became the triggering date for the purposes of property division. He sought to enforce the terms of the marriage contract. The wife sought a reapportionment of assets and spousal and child support. The trial judge ordered a reapportionment of $1.7 million to be paid by the husband, time-limited spousal support and child support. The wife’s appeal was allowed and the issues of reapportionment and quantum and duration of spousal support were remitted to the trial court.