The claimant relies on Asselin v. Roy, 2013 BCSC 1681. That case is distinguishable as: 1. the claimant in the present case did have an opportunity to review the draft Agreement in advance; 2. the claimant was given the opportunity to seek legal advice and specifically rejected it; 3. the claimant was the dominant breadwinner in the household and was not financially dependent on the respondent; 4. the respondent was not in possession of the Agreement “for months” and then “sprung it” upon the claimant; and 5. the claimant was given an opportunity to make changes to the Agreement, and in fact did so.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.