In De Medeiros v. Hodgson, 2018 BCSC 408, the court found the claimant did not make out his case that the terms of the agreement with respect to property should be set aside under any of the factors set out in s. 93(3), but that the portion related to spousal support was severable from the rest of the agreement, and should be set aside due to ss. 164(3)(a) and (c) as the respondent failed to disclose all of her income and the claimant did not understand that he was agreeing to pay the respondent spousal support indefinitely. As such, the court, at para. 141, set aside the portion of the agreement pertaining to spousal support and replaced it with an order that was “substantially different” than what was agreed to in the negotiated agreement.
"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.