Is there a case by case approach and continuing surveillance of financial affairs by the courts?

40. In her heading VII. "Conclusions" in Pelech, my colleague suggests that the case by case approach and the continuing surveillance of separation agreements by the courts will ultimately reinforce the bias that Matas J.A. refers to in the passage in Ross v. Ross, supra, and she seeks to find a more precise standard for the exercise of the courts' functions. She further asserts that people should, as an overriding policy consideration, be encouraged to take responsibility for their own decisions in these matters. I do not, of course, quarrel with the goal of having people settling their financial affairs, marital and otherwise, in a mature and responsible fashion. We would have far less need for law courts if they did. What we really disagree about, I suppose, is the effectiveness of the means she proposes to achieve those results and, more importantly, whether in interpreting s. 11(1) in this way we are not developing judicial policy as opposed to the policy spelled out in the Act. I would again underline what I have previously said, that there is a world of difference between surveillance of marital agreements before and after divorce.