“When interpreting the Final Order, the court must ascertain the mutual intentions of the parties when they entered into this consent agreement, as determined by the wording of the Final Order. Absent ambiguity, the court will give plain and ordinary meaning to the words chosen by the parties. The material provisions must be interpreted in harmony with the other provisions in the Final Order. In this case, the court will interpret the Final Order along the same principles of contractual interpretation as would be used for a contract or, more particularly, a settlement agreement. This is because the parties prepared the terms of the Final Order to reflect the terms of their full and final settlement agreement. Accordingly, I shall approach the issue of interpretation using the same framework the courts use for contractual interpretation within the family law context: see; e.g.: Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 633; Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 494; Consolidated-Bathurst v. Mutual Boiler, 1979 CanLII 10 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 888.”