Background

This case came before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the context of a family law dispute concerning the enforceability of a separation agreement. The parties were married in Venezuela in March 2006. The applicant later sponsored the respondent and her two children to immigrate to Canada, where they arrived in February 2008.

The relationship deteriorated after the respondent returned to Venezuela in December 2009. During this period, the respondent suffered from serious health issues and underwent chemotherapy treatment in early 2010. She returned to Canada in June 2011 and learned that the applicant had commenced divorce proceedings and intended to sell the matrimonial home.

Although the respondent was served with the court application while in Venezuela, she did not file a response. Instead, communication between the parties ultimately led to the preparation of a separation agreement in late 2011. The agreement, signed in December 2011, later became the subject of the respondent’s attempt to have it set aside.

Issues

The court was required to determine whether the separation agreement should be upheld or set aside. Specifically, the court considered whether the respondent was pressured or bullied into signing, whether she lacked a meaningful opportunity to obtain legal advice or translation, whether there was unfairness or misrepresentation, and whether the agreement’s provisions dealing with the matrimonial home and motor vehicle were enforceable.

Findings

The court upheld the separation agreement and rejected the respondents’ attempt to set it aside. It found no evidence of coercion, procedural unfairness, lack of understanding, or misrepresentation. The court ordered the respondent to complete all transfers required under the agreement, including the transfer of the matrimonial home and motor vehicle. Costs were left to be addressed separately.

Analysis

Why did the court reject the respondent’s claim that she was bullied or pressured into signing the agreement?

The court rejected the allegation of bullying because it was unsupported by credible evidence and directly contradicted by objective facts. Claims of coercion require proof of urgency, threats, or circumstances that deprive a party of meaningful choice. None were present here.

The respondent was not confronted in person, was not rushed, and was not subjected to repeated or aggressive conduct. The agreement was mailed to her, and she took approximately one month to review it before signing. Courts consistently treat ample time for consideration as strong evidence against pressure.

The court also relied on affidavit evidence showing that the respondent herself initiated contact with the applicant’s lawyer to pursue settlement. This undermined the claim that the agreement was imposed upon her. Most significantly, the respondent later sent an email referring to a lawyer she had spoken with about the agreement, contradicting her assertion that she lacked advice or understanding. The court preferred this contemporaneous documentary evidence over her later sworn allegations and expressly found her testimony on this issue to be untruthful.

How did the court assess the claim that the respondent lacked legal advice or translation?

The court emphasized that lack of independent legal advice or translation does not automatically invalidate a separation agreement. The key issue is whether the party understood the agreement and had the opportunity to seek assistance.

Here, the respondent had possession of the agreement for approximately one month before signing it. There was no evidence she requested a translation, sought clarification, or was denied assistance. Her own email referencing discussions with a lawyer further undermined her claim.

The court also noted that the agreement itself was clear and straightforward, particularly regarding property and debt responsibilities. In the absence of evidence of confusion or misunderstanding, the court rejected the argument that the agreement was unenforceable due to language or lack of advice.

Why did the court accept the applicant’s valuation of the matrimonial home?

The court accepted the applicant’s valuation because it was supported by objective evidence, while the respondent’s valuation was entirely speculative. The respondent claimed the home was worth significantly more but provided no appraisal or documentary support.

In contrast, the applicant submitted correspondence from a real estate professional indicating a much lower market value and demonstrating that, after payment of the mortgage and commissions, there was no equity. Courts prioritize professional and documentary evidence over unsupported estimates, and the applicant’s valuation was therefore accepted.

Why did the respondent’s health issues not invalidate the agreement?

While the court acknowledged the respondent’s serious illness, it found no evidence that her health impaired her capacity to understand or voluntarily enter into the agreement at the time it was signed. The agreement was executed well after her chemotherapy treatment, and no medical evidence suggested cognitive impairment or incapacity.

The court emphasized that illness alone does not invalidate a separation agreement. Without contemporaneous evidence linking health issues to incapacity at the time of signing, courts will not intervene. The respondent’s participation in settlement discussions further supported the conclusion that she acted knowingly and voluntarily.

Conclusion

Semprun v. Loyo reinforces that separation agreements will be upheld where there is clear evidence of voluntary execution, adequate time for consideration, and no proof of coercion or unfairness. Allegations of pressure, lack of advice, or vulnerability must be supported by credible and objective evidence. Regret or dissatisfaction after the fact is not a legal basis to set aside an otherwise valid agreement.