August 14, 2026
Recent Judgments
In Cunha v. Cunha, a 1994 decision of the BC Supreme Court, Justice Fraser famously described non-disclosure of assets as “the cancer of matrimonial property litigation.” More than three decades later, the warning remains highly relevant. Two recent BC Supreme Court decisions, Sinclair v. Sinclair, 2026 BCSC 826, and In v. In, 2026 BCSC 1424, demonstrate that inadequate disclosure can put even a signed agreement or consent order at risk.
Background
Under the Supreme Court Family Rules, parties are expected to provide full, frank, and timely disclosure of their income, assets, debts, and other financial circumstances. That obligation is not merely procedural. Even where spouses are negotiating outside of formal litigation, complete and accurate disclosure is essential to informed decision-making. Without it, a settlement may not reflect the parties’ true financial circumstances, and the court may later be asked to revisit what appeared to be a final resolution.
The Family Law Act places particular emphasis on financial transparency before parties enter into agreements. The court may set aside an agreement if a spouse failed to disclose significant property, debts, or other information relevant to the negotiation of the agreement.
Clients sometimes ask whether financial disclosure can be waived in a separation agreement. In practice, that approach carries real risk. A party cannot make an informed decision about settlement without knowing what exists to be divided, what is owed, and what the other party’s financial circumstances actually are. A spouse seeking an enforceable agreement should provide full and accurate disclosure and expect the same in return.
Sinclair v. Sinclair, 2026 BCSC 826
In Sinclair, the parties resolved their family law dispute by consent order.
However, after the order was entered, Mr. Sinclair discovered that Ms. Sinclair’s company had held 50,000 common shares in Canary Medical Inc. (“Canary”). Those shares had not been disclosed to him during settlement negotiations.
Mr. Sinclair applied to set aside the consent order on the basis of this non-disclosure. Ms. Sinclair argued that the omission was not material because Mr. Sinclair had not proven that the shares had value.
The court disagreed. As part of the original settlement, Ms. Sinclair had negotiated to receive 1,000 shares of the same class from Mr. Sinclair. The court found that if those shares had value for settlement purposes, the materiality of Ms. Sinclair’s undisclosed 50,000 shares was self-evident.
Ms. Sinclair also raised concerns about Mr. Sinclair’s disclosure. However, the court found that the information she complained of was known to her when she chose to enter into the consent order. By contrast, Ms. Sinclair had not disclosed the Canary shares and had misrepresented the assets held by her company. The result was that Ms. Sinclair had been able to give informed consent to the settlement, while Mr. Sinclair had not.
Material non-disclosure having been found, Ms. Sinclair argued that all of the provisions relating to property division and spousal support ought to be set aside because the terms of a settlement are a unified whole, reflecting a balance that should not be disturbed by the court. Again, the court disagreed.
The court found that was in the interests of justice to set aside only the paragraphs of the consent order directly related to the material non-disclosure of the Canary shares. The issue of the division of the Canary shares was then to be set for trial.
In v. In, 2026 BCSC 1424
In In, the court again considered the consequences of incomplete disclosure in the settlement context. The primary issue was the family home, which had been valued by a joint appraiser at $1,000,000 on February 6, 2020.
Ms. Kim agreed to accept a $30,000 compensation payment for her interest in the family home, along with a mutual waiver of spousal support and other terms. She did so based on Mr. In’s representations that the parties were deeply in debt, that he did not intend to return to work, and that he was not paying the mortgage and would allow the home to go into foreclosure rather than agree to its sale.
The day after the separation agreement was signed, however, Mr. In returned to work after approximately a year and a half on long-term disability leave.
Ms. Kim also did not know that Mr. In had obtained two additional appraisals of the family home. The first, obtained about a month after the joint appraisal for financing purposes, valued the property at $1,100,000. The second, obtained less than a week after the agreement was signed, valued the home at $1,175,000.
The court found that Mr. In’s non-disclosure was significant and material. The missing information related directly to matters at the heart of the parties’ separation agreement, including the value of the family home and Mr. In’s employment income.
In the result, the court set aside the clause of the separation agreement relating to Ms. Kim's compensation payment for her interest in the family home, leaving the rest of the agreement to stand.
Takeaways
These decisions are a reminder that disclosure is not a technicality. It is the foundation of meaningful negotiation and durable settlement. A party who withholds material information risks losing the benefit of the bargain, facing adverse findings, and being ordered to pay costs or other financial consequences. In Sinclair, Ms. Sinclair was ordered to pay special costs to Mr. Sinclair. In In, the court imposed a $5,000 fine on Mr. In.
For clients and counsel, the practical message is straightforward: disclose early, disclose completely, and update disclosure when circumstances change.
A settlement reached without proper disclosure may not be the final word. The more significant the omission, the greater the likelihood that the court will intervene to address the unfairness caused by the missing information.