would undermine the express intention of the agreement and the contract
would have no meaning.
(Emphasis in original)
 There is no equivalent provision in the maher in this case.
 The trial judge states, at para. 10 of his reasons, that
“[t]he contract does not specify that the maher payment is
in substitution of the husband’s obligations arising out of marriage”. But that is not the issue. The relevant parts of ss. 4(1)
and 4(2) of the FLA state:
4(1) In this Part,
. . . . .
“net family property” means the value of all the property, except property
described in subsection (2), that a spouse owns on the valuation date[.]
. . . . .
(2) The value of the following property that a spouse owns on the valuation
date does not form part of the spouse’s net family property:
1. Property, other than a matrimonial home, that was acquired
by gift or inheritance from a third person after the date of the
. . . . .
6. Property that the spouses have agreed by a domestic contract is
not to be included in the spouse’s net family property.
 As such, s. 4(2)6 of the FLA operates as an exception to
the general rule and allows spouses to agree to exclude certain
property from the NFP calculation. The issue in this case is
whether the parties agreed to exclude the maher payment from
the wife’s NFP, as they had in Khanis. The trial judge erred in
law by not reviewing the maher to determine whether the
spouses had actually made such an agreement.
 As noted, the maher in this case contains no express
agreement that the maher payment is to be excluded from the
wife’s NFP. Moreover, there is no basis for inferring the parties
intended to exclude it. The objective contractual intentions of the
parties are to be determined at the time when the contract
is made: Davidson v. Allelix Inc. (1991), 7 O.R. (3d) 581, 
O.J. No. 2230, 86 D.L.R. (4th) 542 (C.A.), at p. 547 D.L.R., at
para. 16; Eli Lilly & Co. v. Novopharm Ltd.,  2 S.C.R. 129,
 S.C.J. No. 59, at para. 54; Family Insurance Corp. v.
Lombard Canada Ltd.,  2 S.C.R. 695,  S.C.J. No. 49,
2002 SCC 48, at para. 36; and Dumbrell v. Regional Group of
Cos. Inc. (2007), 85 O.R. (3d) 616,  O.J. No. 298, 2007