benefits, Barbara Lynn Carroll will co-operate with the Aviva
Insurance Company of Canada and Pilot Insurance Company
in any claim or proceeding brought by the Aviva Insurance
Company of Canada and Pilot Insurance Company in respect
of such assigned payments including participating in any
mediation, litigation or arbitration proceeding commenced by
the Aviva Insurance Company of Canada and Pilot Insurance
Company to recover such payments.
 We also deny leave to appeal the costs order.
 As agreed between the parties, we award costs in the
appeal to the respondents, together, in the amount of $35,000,
inclusive of HST and all disbursements.
Turk v. Turk
2018 ONCA 993
Court of Appeal for Ontario, Watt, B. W. Miller and Nordheimer JJ.A.
December 6, 2018
Family law — Domestic contracts — Setting aside — Trial judge finding that respondent failed to declare certain assets before parties executed separation agreement but that those assets were not “significant”
for purposes of s. 56(4) of Family Law Act as non-disclosure had no bearing on equalization or support provisions of agreement — Trial judge
not erring in declining to set aside agreement under s. 56(4) — Family
Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 56(4).
Following their separation, the parties resolved their financial issues through
mediation, resulting in the execution of a separation agreement. Four years later,
the appellant sought to set aside the separation agreement under s. 56(4) of the
Family Law Act on the basis that the respondent had failed to disclose significant
assets. The trial judge found that the respondent had failed to disclose certain
assets but dismissed the application. She found that, although the value of the
non-disclosed assets may have been considerable, they were not “significant” for
the purposes of s. 56(4) in the context of the negotiation of the settlement agreement. The appellant appealed.
Held, the appeal should be dismissed.
Determining the significance of non-disclosed assets is not a purely mathematical exercise of comparing the value of the non-disclosed assets against the
value of the disclosed assets. Rather, as the trial judge recognized, the term
“significant” must be measured in the context of the relationship between
the parties and the surrounding circumstances. The trial judge found that the
non-disclosed assets had no bearing on equalization and that they were irrelevant to support as the parties had agreed to a level of support that was not
based on actual income, but on an amount much higher than actual income. It
was open to the trial judge to find that more disclosure would not have changed