The purpose of legal formalities is to provide spouses with codified protection against marital agreements that are not the result of free and informed consent. As soon as an agreement, although a marriage agreement, has been reached, the parties are expected to honour the commitments they have made. A party cannot simply explain later that it did not intend to live up to its end of good business. It is true that agreements that appear fair at the time of execution may become unfair at the time of the triggering event, depending on the evolution of the life of the parties. However, in a setting in which private parties are allowed to assume personal responsibility for their financial well-being after the dissolution of the marriage, courts should be reluctant to question their initiative and injunction, particularly where independent legal advice has been sought. “The parties [at Balfour vs. Balfour] lived together in Un DerUt. In such cases, their national rules are generally not intended to establish legal relationships. It is quite different if the parties do not live in Derity, but are separated or about to separate. They negotiate zealously. They do not rely on honourable agreements. Presumably, they intend to establish legal relationships. Most would agree that the “bar” was raised for the financial disclosure of marriage contracts with Rick v Brandsema.19 The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the spouses` right to the other`s finances. In the absence of this full disclosure, all subsequent marital agreements may be repealed.
The rick decision may have laid the groundwork for the same approach of the Queens`Bench of Alberta Court to Brown v Silvera,20 where the court ruled: “I prefer reconciliation based on a moderate sense of opposability. I believe that the judge cannot simply accept and enforce the agreement if the legal procedures for enforcement are not followed. It does not respect the status. But the judge does not pretend that the agreement was never reached. On the contrary, the judge considers the effects of the agreement on the parties to be one of the facts of their lives and therefore one of the circumstances made relevant by page 8. These effects may be minimal or significant. Applying this distinction can be difficult. This is not a reason to erase this distinction, because it will also create difficulties and create the spectre of unfair results. If a party trying to set aside a national contract has received independent legal advice prior to signing, its challenge will be greater. You should find that this advice is as it is. National contracts are legally enforceable agreements on spousal relations.