The Enforceability of Unsigned Settlement Agreements: Shibley v Shibley¹.
- Misturah (Misty) Oshodi
- 2 minutes ago
- 2 min read
Overview
In the case of Shibley v Shibley², the Alberta Court of King’s Bench enforced an unsigned separation agreement reached during two four-way settlement meetings, rejecting a later attempt to reopen child support and property issues based on alleged disclosure deficiencies and “buyer’s remorse.”
The decision reinforces the Court’s strong deference to negotiated family law settlements particularly where both parties were represented by counsel and acted consistently with the agreed terms.
Background
The parties married in 2007 and separated in 2023. They share three children who primarily reside with the mother in Ontario, while the father remained in the family home in Edmonton. At separation, the parties were significantly indebted.
In November 2024, the parties attended two four-way settlement meetings:
November 7, 2024: parenting, child support, and spousal support resolved
November 27, 2024: property and debt division resolved
Following the meetings:
The father immediately began paying child support based on imputed income of $30,000;
He refinanced the family home consistent with the agreement; and
His counsel prepared and delivered a detailed draft Separation Agreement.
The mother later refused to sign the agreement and sought:
Imputation of income to the father at $50,000
Retroactive and increased child support
Re-litigation of property and debt allocation
Key Issues
The Court considered:
Whether a binding and enforceable agreement was reached;
Whether income should be imputed to the father; and
Whether retroactive or increased child support was warranted.
Decision
The court held that a binding agreement was reached because there was a clear meeting of the minds, essential terms were settled on parenting, child support, spousal support, and property, the draft Separation Agreement accurately reflected what was agreed upon, both parties were represented by counsel at two four-way meetings, and subsequent conduct (payments, refinancing, correspondence) confirmed the agreement.
The Court emphasized that a signed document is not required where the evidence establishes consensus on essential terms.
The Court also posited that the mother’s later dissatisfaction after obtaining a second legal opinion did not invalidate an otherwise binding agreement and that “Buyer’s remorse” is not a basis to undo a settlement agreement.
Can an agreement be enforceable despite statutory non-compliance?
In this instant case, although the agreement did not strictly comply with Section 37 - 38 of the Family Property Act, the Court enforced it, relying on Anderson v Anderson³ and emphasizing contractual autonomy, procedural fairness, independent legal representation, and substantial compliance with the objectives of the legislation. The father’s waiver of a $26,000+ equalization payment further supported fairness.
Practical Takeaways
Four-way settlement meetings matter: agreements reached can be binding even if unsigned through separation agreements or consent orders;
Conduct after settlement (payments, refinancing, compliance) can confirm enforceability;
Independent legal representation significantly strengthens the validity of agreements;
Courts strongly discourage re-litigation of settled family law disputes; and
Allegations of pressure or inadequate disclosure must be supported by clear evidence not hindsight dissatisfaction.
Bottom Line
This decision is a strong reminder that family law settlements are meant to bring finality. Where parties negotiate in good faith, with counsel, and act on the agreement, the Court may enforce the terms of the agreement even if one party later changes their mind.
¹Shibley v Shibley, 2025 ABKB 592
²supra ³Anderson v Anderson, [2023] SCJ No 13
Comments