What is the test for a general release under which a plaintiff agrees to reduce support in exchange for receiving the proceeds of the sale of a house sale proceeds?

The respondent said she agreed to the agreement to reduce support in exchange for receiving the house sale proceeds which included an unequal distribution of same. She referred to the claimant interfering with the distribution of the sale proceeds from the house at a time when she had no place to live and limited income. She inferred that these factors constituted evidence of some duress at the time the settlement was concluded. To succeed in setting aside an agreement on the basis of duress the respondent must show that the claimant or his agent committed fraud, duress, or undue influence that tainted the agreement. The test was set out in Kirsch v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1987), 31 C.C.L.I. 148 (B.C.C.A.), where, at p. 153, the court stated: To succeed against the defendants, the plaintiffs must show that the defendants or their agents committed the fraud or duress or undue influence that they say tainted the agreement. In other words it is not sufficient for the plaintiffs to show that they executed the general release by reason of the fraud, duress or undue influence of their own agent.