The court highlighted the husband's extensive legal experience and capacity to understand contracts
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the validity of a 2017 marriage contract and rejected the husband’s claims of duress and post-separation injury.
The parties in Singh v. Khalil, 2024 ONCA 909 married in 2016 and separated in 2020. In 2017, the wife drafted a marriage contract stipulating no support obligations and separate property. The husband, serving as the appellant in the case, signed the contract in the presence of a lawyer but chose not to seek independent legal advice. He later sought to set aside the agreement, alleging duress and lack of disclosure, and argued that oral evidence and a trial were necessary to resolve these issues.
The appeal court rejected these arguments, noting the appellant's extensive legal experience and capacity to understand contracts. It found no genuine issue requiring a trial, emphasizing that the appellant had chosen to proceed by motion despite two prior judges recommending this approach. The court highlighted the proportionality principle under the Family Law Rules, which supports resolving matters efficiently in line with their complexity.
The appellant's evidence revealed contradictions undermining his credibility, such as inconsistent accounts of prior marriages and the omission of the contract from earlier proceedings. The court concluded that the motion judge appropriately made findings of fact and credibility based on written submissions, finding no error in declining to set aside the contract.
The appellant argued that injuries from a motor vehicle accident after separation had impacted his earning capacity, seeking spousal support from the respondent. The Court of Appeal noted, however, that the appellant neither claimed spousal support in his application nor provided sufficient evidence of the injury's impact. The short marriage duration and the lack of significant evidence to support a claim further weakened his case. The court upheld the motion judge's finding that no relief was warranted.
The motion judge ordered the appellant to pay $15,000 in costs for the motion and prior appearances, citing his failure to comply with disclosure requirements. On appeal, the appellant argued that the award violated procedural rules and failed to account for his inability to pay. The appeal court dismissed these claims, affirming that cost awards are discretionary and entitled to deference.
