Lynda Quinn and Roland Keiper were married in 1989 and separated in 1996 or 1997.
Both parties hired high priced lawyers after the separation. The husband’s financial affairs were complicated. The wife hired a litigation accountant, who sent a detailed list of questions to the husband about his financial affairs. There was also a court order for financial disclosure.
The husband did not provide the information requested. Instead, the parties signed a comprehensive Separation Agreement, which provided that the husband pay to the wife a property settlement of $10 million.
The wife had second thoughts. In 2005, she applied to set aside the Separation Agreement on the basis that he had not made full disclosure. She also sued her former lawyer for failing to get financial disclosure.
Justice Brown granted summary judgment dismissing the wife’s claim. He said the claim was so weak that it did not raise a “genuine issue” for trial. While the husband’s disclosure had not been perfect, it did not appear that there was a glaring failure to disclose any asset. There was no proverbial “Swiss bank account” that the husband had hidden from the wife.
Justice Brown made this important comment: “Exhausting formal pre-trial disclosure remedies is not a pre-condition to entering into a valid separation agreement. Our law permits a party to enter into a valid domestic contract even when the party thinks that the other should make more financial disclosure.”
In the opinion of this writer, Justice Brown’s decision is questionable. It creates an incentive for the wealthier spouse to “stonewall” on financial disclosure, and exhaust the poorer party financially through litigation, in the hope that the other party will be forced to settle without full disclosure.
The decision is under appeal. It will be interesting to see what the Court of Appeal says about the above quotation and other similar statements.
Quinn v. Keiper 87 O.R. (3d) 184
