“In contract law, the doctrine of duress requires more than simply pressure. In this instance, duress would have required the coercion of the mother’s will through pressure, dominating her will at the time that the contract was executed, so that she had no realistic alternative but to submit (Stott v. Merit Investment Corp. (1988), 1988 CanLII 192 (ON CA), 63 O.R. (2d) 545 (C.A.), 1988 CarswellOnt 887, at para 48, leave to appeal refused; Berdette v Berdette, 1991 CanLII 7061 (ON CA), [1991] O. J. No 788 (C.A), at para 22, leave to appeal refused; Ramdial v. Davis (Litigation guardian of), 2015 ONCA 726, [2015] O.J. No 5630, at para 42). In addition, as described in Toscano v. Toscano, 2015 ONSC 487, 57 R.F.L. (7th) 234, at para. 72, equity further recognizes a wider concept of duress, which includes coercion, intimidation, manipulation, or the application of illegitimate pressure.
The test for duress is a high threshold, in this case there is no evidence of any attempt of the father or his counsel to dominate the will of the mother at the time she executed the Minutes. As Penny J. wrote in Ludmer v. Ludmer, 2013 ONSC 784, 33 R.F.L. (7th) 331, to establish duress, “there must be something more than stress associated with a potential breakdown in familial relations. There must be credible evidence demonstrating that the complaining party was subject to intimidation or illegitimate pressure to sign the agreement” (at para. 53, varied in 2014 ONCA 827, [2014] O.J. No. 5565, but not on this point).”