the outcome of the mediation for the appellant and that the undisclosed assets
were not significant.
Cases referred to
Bruni v. Bruni (2010), 104 O.R. (3d) 254,  O.J. No. 5148, 2010 ONSC 6568,
100 R.F.L. (6th) 213, 195 A.C.W.S. (3d) 446 (S.C.J.); Currey v. Currey,  O.J.
No. 5943, 26 R.F.L. (5th) 28 (S.C.J.); Dochuk v. Dochuk,  O.J. No. 363,
89 O. T.C. 41, 44 R.F.L. (4th) 97 (Gen. Div.); Virc v. Blair (2014), 119 O.R. (3d) 721,
 O.J. No. 2301, 2014 ONCA 392, 42 R.F.L. (7th) 304, 372 D.L.R. (4th) 224,
319 O.A.C. 359, 239 A.C. W.S. (3d) 968
Statutes referred to
Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 56(4), (a)
Rules and regulations referred to
Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR;97-175, s. 7 [as am.]
APPEAL from the order of Horkins J.,  O.J. No. 6224,
2017 ONSC 6889 (S.C.J.) dismissing an application to set aside
a separation agreement.
Lorne H. Wolfson, for appellant.
Heather Hansen, Stephen Grant and Jenna Beaton, for
 BY THE COURT: — The parties were married for nearly 19
years and had two children. Following their separation in 2008,
they resolved all financial issues through a lengthy course of
mediation in which both parties were represented. The resulting
separation agreement was executed in April 2010, and the parties
divorced approximately six months thereafter.
 The terms of the separation agreement included provisions
that the respondent, Stuart Turk, pay the appellant, Jennifer
Turk, $10,000 per month in child and spousal support, and pay
all of the children’s s. 7 [of the Federal Child Support Guidelines,
SOR;97-175] expenses. The appellant agreed to pay the respondent an equalization payment of $181,578.
 Four years later, the appellant sought an order setting aside
the separation agreement under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, on the basis that the respondent failed to disclose significant assets. Section 56(4)(a) states that a court “may,
on application, set aside a domestic contract or a provision in it,
(a) if a party failed to disclose to the other significant assets . . .
existing when the domestic contract was made”.
 In place of the separation agreement, the appellant sought
various orders equalizing net family property (“NFP”), imputing
income to the respondent, and fixing increased spousal and