What is the test for unconscionability in a matrimonial agreement?

I find the claimant had sufficient understanding of the Agreement to be held to his bargain. I am unable to conclude that there was anything akin to unconscionability, even as that term is interpreted in the unique context of matrimonial agreements: Rick v. Brandsema, 2009 SCC 10 at para. 43. In particular, given their repeated dramatic arguments over the entire relationship, I do not believe the claimant would have been sufficiently distressed by the respondent’s alleged threat to throw E and herself off the balcony if he did not sign the Agreement. Indeed, the claimant contradicted himself by testifying both that he was in a state of emotional vulnerability due to the respondent’s threats, while at the same time stating this was all ‘business as usual’ such that he did not take the separation effort particularly seriously.

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.