The parties married in 1973 and separated in 2000.  During their 29 years together, they had five children and acquired a dairy farm in which they were equal shareholders, as well as other real property, vehicles and RRSPs.  The parties were intermittently represented by lawyers and also used the services of mediators during their negotiation of a separation agreement.  Approximately a year after their divorce, the wife sought to set aside the agreement on the grounds of unconscionability or, in the alternative, a reapportionment order under s. 65 of British Columbia’s Family Relations Act.  The trial judge found that the agreement was unconscionable because the husband had exploited the wife’s mental instability during negotiations and had deliberately concealed or under\u8209 -valued assets.  This resulted in the wife receiving significantly less than her entitlement under the Act, despite the fact that it was the parties’ express intention to divide their assets equally.  As a result, the trial judge made an order awarding the wife an amount representing the difference between the negotiated equalization payment and the amount she was entitled to under the Act.  The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial judge’s conclusions about the extent of the wife’s vulnerabilities and concluded that, in any event, they were effectively compensated for by the availability of counsel.

 Held:  The appeal should be allowed.