2002 SCC 33. Questions of law are reviewable for correctness,
and questions of fact or questions of mixed fact and law are
reviewable for palpable and overriding error, unless there is an
extricable question of law: Housen, at paras. 8, 10 and 36.
 The interpretation of non-standard form contracts is
a question of mixed fact and law: Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston
Moly Corp.,  2 S.C.R. 633,  S.C.J. No. 53, 2014 SCC
53, at para. 50; and Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge
Indemnity Insurance Co.,  2 S.C.R. 23,  S.C.J. No.
37, 2016 SCC 37, at para. 4. As such, the trial judge’s interpretation of the maher as creating a demand obligation that was
enforceable under the FLA is reviewable for palpable and overriding error: Housen, at para. 36. There was no such error in the
trial judge’s reasons on this issue.
 The two main clauses of the agreement were separately
executed and the second clause listing the husband’s behavioural requirements is better related to the wife’s right to exercise a power of attorney to seek a divorce. Moreover, the trial
judge’s finding that the agreement was a valid domestic contract
under s. 55(1) of the FLA and his decision not to exercise his discretion under s. 56(4) was amply supported by the evidence.
There is no basis to interfere with these conclusions.
 On the other hand, the applicability of a statutory provision to a contract is a matter of statutory interpretation that is
reviewable for correctness: Collett v. Reliance Home Comfort
Limited Partnership,  O.J. No. 5555, 2012 ONCA 821, at
para. 45. As such, the trial judge’s application of ss. 4(1) and 4(2)
of the FLA to conclude that the maher payment was excluded
from NFP is reviewable for correctness. The trial judge erred in
applying these provisions.
(3) The maher in this case
 After following the Khanis case to conclude the maher
payment was enforceable, the trial judge found that the maher
payment was excluded from NFP pursuant to s. 4(2)6 of the
FLA. In so doing, the trial judge erred in applying s. 4(2)6.
 In Khanis, this court made clear that the outcome in that
case rested squarely upon the express language in the domestic
contract, which excluded the maher payment from NFP. In dis-
missing the husband’s appeal at paras. 9-10, this court reaf-
firmed the trial judge’s reasoning that,
By necessary implication of the words “in addition and without prejudice to
and not in substitution of all my obligations provided for by the laws of the
land”, the maher amount is excluded from net family property. Otherwise it