When the Family Law Act came into force in March 2013, it fundamentally reshaped the legal landscape for separating spouses in British Columbia. The Family Law Act replaced the Family Relations Act, introducing a new presumptive framework for the division of family property, a different approach to excluded property, and revised guidance on the relevance of domestic agreements such as prenuptial and marriage agreements. Yet, the Family Relations Act has not entirely disappeared from the courtroom; for the many couples who entered into marriage or cohabitation agreements at a time when the Family Relations Act was the governing statute, and those agreements continue to be analyzed under that older regime today.

A recent decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, A.B. v. C.D., provides a thorough illustration of how courts today approach pre-2013 marriage agreements. The case, decided after a 27-day trial in 2025 and released as reasons for judgment in April 2026, confirms the test for enforceability of an older marriage agreement, the factors relevant to fairness, and the interaction between property division, spousal support, and child support where one spouse holds significant business assets brought into the relationship.

In this blog, we examine the court’s analysis and consider what it means for spouses negotiating, relying upon, or seeking to challenge a marriage agreement signed before the Family Law Act came into effect.

A Long Relationship and an Older Agreement

The case involved a 15-year relationship, 14 of them married, before the parties separated in mid-2023. The couple had two children. Throughout the relationship, the wife had remained out of the workforce and managed the household, while the husband built and operated an established glass business and held a partial interest in a separate general contracting business. The husband’s corporate assets were valued at approximately $2.5 million at the relevant time period.

The parties signed a marriage agreement in 2009 prior to marrying. Its central purpose was to preserve the husband’s pre-existing business interests as his separate property in the event of a future breakdown of the relationship. The agreement also contained more nuanced provisions: each spouse could maintain separate property as their own, but property acquired during the marriage and registered in both names as equal co-owners would be treated as joint property. The agreement specifically allowed the parties to convert separate property into joint property through gift or by registering title jointly. In other words, while the document protected the husband’s business assets, it also created a clear mechanism by which the wife could acquire an interest in other property accumulated during the relationship.

The parties used that mechanism. Two successive family residences were purchased during the marriage, including the family home ultimately constructed on a lot the parties acquired together. Title to each was registered in both names as joint tenants.

Which Statute Governs? The Family Relations Act Endures for Pre-2013 Agreements

The first question the court had to resolve was which property division regime applied. Because the parties’ marriage agreement predated the 2013 repeal of the Family Relations Act and the coming into force of the Family Law Act, the parties agreed — and the court confirmed — that the Family Relations Act would apply. This is a critical point for anyone with a pre-2013 domestic agreement: the change in legislation does not automatically pull older agreements into the Family Law Act framework. The statute under which the agreement was negotiated remains the relevant lens for evaluating its effect.

Within the meaning of section 61 of the Family Relations Act, a “marriage agreement” had to satisfy specific formal requirements. The court accepted that the 2009 agreement met that statutory definition. Both spouses had also retained independent legal advice before signing, and understood that the agreement’s principal aim was to protect the husband’s business interests in the event of separation.

Two Distinct Questions: Enforceability and Fairness

A central feature of the court’s analysis was its careful separation of two questions that are often blurred in the public’s understanding of marriage agreements. The first is whether the agreement is enforceable at common law — that is, whether it was formed properly and whether its substance is so far removed from statutory objectives that no court should give effect to it. The second is whether, even if enforceable, dividing property in accordance with the agreement would operate unfairly under the Family Relations Act.

Procedural Fairness in Formation

The wife argued that the agreement should be set aside for procedural reasons. She pointed to her more limited formal education, the fact that the agreement was finalized close to the wedding date, and what she characterized as duress and undue influence in the negotiations.

The court did not accept these arguments. The evidence demonstrated that the possibility of a marriage agreement had been raised well in advance of the wedding date. The wife, despite not having completed high school, had built a successful career in retail and had progressed quickly to management positions; her lack of post-secondary credentials did not, in this context, leave her at a meaningful disadvantage in understanding the document she was signing. Both parties had independent legal advice. Considered as a whole, the formation of the agreement was procedurally sound.

Substantive Unconscionability

The wife also argued that the substance of the agreement was unconscionable because it deviated too sharply from the statutory objectives of the Family Relations Act. The court rejected this argument as well. While the agreement did exclude the wife from any direct interest in the husband’s pre-existing business assets, it also contained the mechanism — described above — by which the parties could, and did, convert other property into joint assets. Viewed as a whole, the bargain was neither one-sided in a substantially unfair way nor a significant departure from the underlying objectives of the Family Relations Act.

Does the Agreement Operate Unfairly?

Having concluded that the agreement was enforceable, the court turned to the question of whether dividing property under its terms would nonetheless be unfair. This second analysis was critical because, even where a marriage agreement is technically valid, a court retains discretion under the Family Relations Act (and similarly under the Family Law Act) to not enforce it where strict adherence would produce an unjust outcome.

The court reviewed each of the section 65(1) factors of the Family Relations Act, including the length of the relationship, the duration of separation, the parties’ respective needs for economic self-sufficiency, and the manner in which property had been acquired and used.

A number of practical observations weighed in favour of giving effect to the agreement. When the value of the parties’ joint and separate property was added together, the wife’s share under the agreement amounted to roughly 30.7% of the overall value — a striking increase from the less than 2% of total property she had brought into the relationship. If the corporate assets were removed from the equation, the remaining family property was divided roughly equally between the parties. In other words, leaving aside the husband’s business interests (that the agreement was primarily designed to protect), the bargain effectively mirrored the presumption of equal division that would otherwise apply.

The court also took into account that the wife retained a meaningful entitlement to spousal support and child support. Given the long-term, traditional division of labour during the marriage, the wife had a strong compensatory claim to spousal support and a secondary, non-compensatory claim arising from her time out of the workforce. The court ordered spousal support at the higher end of the applicable range, in addition to retroactive arrears for both spousal and child support.

A Narrow Exception: The Vehicle

The court did identify one circumstance in which the agreement would operate unfairly. The vehicle driven by the wife was technically held through the husband’s wholly-owned company. Allowing the husband to retain that vehicle would undermine the very objective of supporting the wife’s transition to economic self-sufficiency, particularly because she relied on the vehicle to care for the children and would need it to re-enter the workforce. On that narrow point, and that point alone, the court departed from the agreement and ordered the vehicle transferred to the wife.

Practical Takeaways

Although every family law matter turns on its specific facts, this decision offers a number of useful reminders for individuals who entered into a marriage agreement before the Family Law Act came into force, as well as for those negotiating a new agreement today.

First, an older agreement is not a relic. Pre-2013 marriage agreements remain analyzable under the Family Relations Act, and a properly drafted agreement supported by independent legal advice is likely to be enforced.

Second, our courts assess marriage agreements as a whole. Provisions that appear unfavourable to one spouse in isolation — such as the exclusion of business assets — may look very different when viewed in the context of the entire agreement, including support obligations and the treatment of jointly registered property.

Third, even where an agreement is enforceable, the court’s discretion to identify and correct discrete unfairness remains alive. The vehicle order in this case is a small but instructive example.

Finally, the case is a reminder that the durability of a marriage agreement begins long before any dispute arises. Careful drafting, advance discussion, the use of independent legal advice, and a thoughtful approach to what each spouse will receive in the event of breakdown all contribute to whether an agreement will withstand a later challenge.

Contact the Vancouver Family Lawyers at Meridian Law Group for Assistance with Marriage Agreements and Property Division

If you are negotiating, relying upon, or seeking to challenge a domestic agreement, or are otherwise involved in a family law dispute relating to divorce, property division, spousal support, or child support, experienced legal representation is essential to protecting your long-term financial interests.

Meridian Law Group provides comprehensive litigation representation to clients throughout the province. Our team of experienced family law litigators offers skilled advocacy in all family law disputes, including matters involving older marriage agreements, complex property division, business valuations, and support obligations. To discuss your case and how we can represent your interests, contact us online or by calling (604) 687-2277 to schedule a confidential consultation.