“In the Ontario Court of Appeal decision of El Feky v. Tohamy, 2010 ONCA 647 (CanLII), Rosenberg J.A. sets out the meaning of good faith at para. 34 as follows:
[34] A more appropriate explanation for the meaning of good faith in this context is found in the decision of Mendes da Costa U.F.C.J. in Hart v. Hart (1990), 27 R.F.L. (3d) 419 at p. 432:
Section 2(8)(b)enshrines in legislative form the concept of “good faith”. As is not infrequently the case, these words are not defined in the Act, and I do not believe that it would be either possible or useful to attempt to catalogue the possibilities that they embrace. However, I must attribute to these words their “plain meaning according to the understanding and practices of the times.”: Cash v. George Dundas Realty Ltd. (1973), 1973 CanLII 40 (ON CA), 1 O.R. (2d) 241, 248 (C.A.). I believe, to establish “good faith”, it must be shown that the moving party acted honestly and with no ulterior motive. It does not seem to me that the Legislature, anticipating the general newsworthy nature of the family property provisions of the Act, intended that a mere failure to make enquiries should necessarily negate “good faith”, provided that the absence of enquiry does not constitute wilful blindness or does not otherwise, in all the circumstances, fall below community expectations. As I have stated, my assessment of the evidence is that the wife was ignorant of her rights under the Act, and I believe that her state of mind was one of blameless ignorance. I am satisfied that the delay in issue was delay incurred in good faith within the meaning of section 2(8)(b).”