The agreement included a waiver of spousal support
In a recent ruling, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice declined the applicant's request for immediate financial disclosure, determining that the enforceability of a separation agreement executed in 1995 waiving spousal support must be resolved first.
In Barris v. Barris, 2024 ONSC 2546, the court addressed a motion involving spousal support obligations following a 30-year-old divorce. The parties, who were married from 1986 to 1995, had previously entered into two domestic contracts. The first, a separation agreement signed in 1995, included a waiver of spousal support. The second, an interim spousal support agreement, was signed in 2016 without prejudice, stipulating spousal support payments from the respondent to the applicant without formal financial disclosure.
The applicant, seeking spousal support, brought an urgent motion for disclosure under the Family Law Rules to quantify her entitlement. However, the respondent filed a motion seeking to set aside or stay the automatic disclosure order pending a summary judgment motion on the enforceability of the separation agreement.
The separation agreement executed in 1995 included clauses unconditionally releasing both parties from any spousal support claims. Despite this, the applicant sought to set aside the spousal support release in 2001, but the litigation ended unsuccessfully after five years. In 2016, the parties signed the interim spousal support agreement without financial disclosure, with the respondent agreeing to pay $7,200 monthly.
The respondent has argued that the 1995 separation agreement, signed after extensive financial disclosure and with independent legal advice, should be upheld. He contends that the applicant’s current motion is an attempt to relitigate issues previously settled.
The Superior Court acknowledged the automatic order for financial disclosure under Rule 8.0.1, which applies to claims made after February 2022. However, it noted that the enforceability of the separation agreement must be addressed first. The court emphasized the importance of efficiency and proportionality under Rule 2(2) of the Family Law Rules, suggesting that immediate financial disclosure could derail the scheduled summary judgment motion.
The court cited several cases highlighting that financial disclosure obligations should be weighed against the relevance to the issues at hand. It referenced Leskun v. Leskun, where non-disclosure was likened to a “cancer” in matrimonial litigation, and Miglin v. Miglin, which underscored the necessity of full disclosure during agreement negotiations.
Ultimately, the court declined to order the immediate disclosure requested by the applicant, determining that the issue of the separation agreement’s validity should be resolved first.
