“Settlement agreements in matrimonial proceedings should ordinarily be respected and the parties should not be entitled to go back on their agreement to resolve their differences. In their jointly authored judgment in Miglin v. Miglin, supra, Bastarache and Arbour JJ. state at para. 4:
[W]e believe that a fairly negotiated agreement that represents the intentions and expectations of the parties and that complies substantially with the objectives of the Divorce Act as a whole should receive considerable weight. … [T]hese general objectives include not only the equitable sharing of the consequences of the marriage breakdown under s. 15(2), but also certainty, finality and autonomy.
At para. 54, Bastarache and Arbour JJ. refer to the importance of fostering settlements and state that if the policy of encouraging parties to resolve their matrimonial disputes is to be maintained, “more must be shown than mere deviation from what a trial judge would have awarded in an order before it is appropriate for the court to disregard the parties’ pre-existing agreement.” Miglin dealt with a separation agreement. We are concerned with minutes of settlement reached during the course of litigation where the promotion of certainty, autonomy and finality is especially important.
The appellant submits that as the respondent received appropriate legal advice and as she proposed the terms of the minutes of settlement, it cannot be said that he took advantage of her by accepting her proposal. Most agreements entered into with the benefit of a competent legal advice will be upheld, especially where the party seeking to avoid the settlement proposed the terms.”