B.C. Court Upholds Cohabitation Agreement Despite Unequal Property Division

Case Overview

Priebe v. Baker, 2026 BCSC 1539 concerned whether a cohabitation agreement signed by Lancelot Darren Priebe and Alicia Ann Baker should be enforced after their relationship ended.

The parties signed the agreement on November 15, 2016, after living together in a marriage-like relationship. Broadly, the agreement provided that:

• Each party would keep their own property and debts.
• Property transferred by Mr. Priebe to Ms. Baker during the relationship would remain hers.
• Mr. Priebe would make lump-sum payments to Ms. Baker based on the length of the relationship.
• Both parties would waive spousal support.

The relationship ended on March 27, 2020. By then, Mr. Priebe had paid Ms. Baker approximately $2.4 million under the agreement, followed by an additional $60,000 to assist with relocation expenses.

Mr. Priebe asked the court to enforce the agreement. Ms. Baker argued that it should be set aside and that property and spousal support should instead be determined under British Columbia’s Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 [FLA].

Justice Klein upheld the agreement. The Court found that:

1. The asset schedules were part of the agreement when it was signed.
2. The references to “assets” and “property” were sufficiently clear.
3. There was no procedural unfairness when the agreement was made.
4. The agreement did not operate with significant unfairness after separation.

Why This Decision is Important

This decision illustrates the strong protection given to properly executed family agreements under British Columbia law.

The Court emphasized that spouses may agree to an unequal division of property and may waive spousal support. A court will not set aside such an agreement simply because the result differs substantially from what a spouse might receive under the FLA.

The case is particularly important because it addresses:

• The importance of asset schedules: Documents referred to in an agreement may be treated as part of the agreement, even where one party later claims they were not attached at signing.
• The meaning of “property” and “assets”: Courts may interpret an agreement as a whole rather than treating minor differences in wording as fatal uncertainty.
• Independent legal advice: Ms. Baker had received extensive legal advice, which supported the finding that she understood the agreement and was not pressured into signing it.
• Immigration-related vulnerability: Immigration concerns do not automatically establish duress or exploitation. The evidence must show that the other spouse improperly took advantage of those concerns.
• Significant unfairness: A large difference between the agreement’s result and the statutory result is not, by itself, enough to invalidate the agreement.
• Financial outcomes after separation: The Court considered Ms. Baker’s substantial payment under the agreement, her increased net worth, rent-free housing, and continued salary when assessing whether the agreement was significantly unfair.

Case Details

Parties

• Claimant: Lancelot Darren Priebe
• Respondent: Alicia Ann Baker
• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia
• Citation: Priebe v. Baker, 2026 BCSC 1539
• Docket: E210312
• Judge: The Honourable Justice Klein
• Judgment date: August 13, 2026

Relationship and Agreement

The parties met in late 2013 through a travel website and met in person in February 2014. They travelled together regularly during 2014 and became intimate in approximately April 2014.

Ms. Baker began living in Mr. Priebe’s home in April 2015. The parties disagreed about whether their marriage-like relationship began in 2014 or 2015.

The Court found that the relationship began in approximately April 2015, for several reasons:

• Ms. Baker did not begin living with Mr. Priebe until April 2015.
• Her contact with Mr. Priebe’s children was limited before that time.
• She accepted a significant job offer in California in March 2015, suggesting that she had not yet decided to enter a long-term marriage-like relationship in Canada.
• The parties’ agreement identified April 24, 2015, as the start date.
• The Court accepted Mr. Priebe’s evidence that he did not intend to enter a marriage-like relationship before April 2015.

The parties signed the cohabitation agreement on November 15, 2016. Both signatures were witnessed by Mr. Priebe’s father.

Legal Advice and Immigration Circumstances

Ms. Baker was a United States citizen who wished to remain in Canada. She had obtained a work permit based on her professional qualifications and was concerned about possible changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement following the 2016 United States election.

Before signing the agreement:

• Mr. Priebe prepared an initial outline and draft.
• Ms. Baker retained independent legal counsel.
• Her lawyer billed more than 30 hours for legal advice.
• Her lawyer proposed substantial revisions, including a proposed $5 million gift and terms based on an alleged high-paying job offer in California.
• Mr. Priebe rejected those revisions.
• Mr. Priebe later referred Ms. Baker to another senior family law lawyer for additional independent legal advice.
• Ms. Baker signed the agreement after receiving the revised draft.

The Court found that these circumstances did not show pressure or exploitation. Instead, they showed that Ms. Baker had legal assistance and that Mr. Priebe took steps to ensure she understood the agreement.

The Asset Schedules

The agreement referred to schedules listing the parties’ assets. Ms. Baker argued that the schedules were not attached when the agreement was signed and therefore did not form part of it.

The Court rejected this argument. Justice Klein relied on the following evidence:

• The agreement specifically referred to the schedules.
• Ms. Baker signed the agreement.
• Immediately afterward, she delivered the executed agreement to her immigration lawyer.
• The agreement and schedules were included in her permanent residence application shortly afterward.
• There was no evidence that anyone else supplied the schedules to the immigration lawyer.

The Court found that Ms. Baker knew about the schedules and signed the agreement knowing that they formed part of it.

Meaning of “Property” and “Assets”

Ms. Baker argued that the agreement was too vague because its main provisions referred to “property,” while the schedules used the word “assets.”

The Court rejected this argument. Reading the agreement as a whole, Justice Klein found that the parties intended the agreement to address all property represented by the listed assets. Treating the difference between “assets” and “property” as invalidating the agreement would produce an unreasonable result and defeat the agreement’s purpose.

The Court held that the agreement was sufficiently clear and was not void for vagueness.

Procedural Unfairness

Under ss. 93(3) and 164(3) of the FLA, a family agreement may be set aside where, among other things:

• A spouse failed to disclose significant property, debts, income, or relevant information.
• One spouse took improper advantage of the other’s vulnerability.
• A spouse did not understand the agreement’s nature or consequences.
• Circumstances existed that would make the agreement voidable under common law.

Ms. Baker argued that she was vulnerable because of:

• Her immigration status.
• Her concern about losing her work permit.
• Her need to obtain a cohabitation agreement for her permanent residence application.
• An alleged imbalance of power.
• A lack of financial disclosure by Mr. Priebe.

The Court did not accept these arguments.

Justice Klein found that Ms. Baker was well educated, had extensive experience in accounting, business, contracts, and related fields, and had received significant independent legal advice. The Court also found that Mr. Priebe did not rush her into signing. Instead, he encouraged her to obtain further legal advice.

The Court also rejected the disclosure argument. Since the Court found that the relationship began in April 2015, Mr. Priebe was not required to disclose wealth accumulated before that date as family property arising from the relationship. The Court found that he provided a list of his assets at the relevant time.

Significant Unfairness

The FLA also permits a court to set aside an agreement for significant unfairness, even where there was no procedural unfairness when it was signed.

The Court described this as a demanding test. “Significant” unfairness must be meaningful, compelling, or weighty. It is not enough to show that the agreement produced an unequal result or differed from the division that would have occurred under the FLA.

The Court considered:

• The time between signing and separation.
• The parties’ intention to create certainty.
• The extent to which they relied on the agreement.
• Changes in the parties’ financial circumstances.
• Whether the spousal support provisions met the objectives of the FLA.

The relationship lasted approximately five years, but only about three years and four months passed between signing the agreement and separation. The Court considered this a relatively short period.

The Court found that the agreement had operated substantially as intended:

• Mr. Priebe retained his property.
• Ms. Baker retained property and gifts transferred to her.
• Ms. Baker received approximately $2.4 million under the agreement.
• She lived rent-free in Mr. Priebe’s home for approximately two years after separation.
• Mr. Priebe continued paying her salary for one year after separation.
• He paid an additional $60,000 for relocation expenses.
• Ms. Baker’s net worth increased from approximately $2.3 million after the agreement payout to approximately $4.48 million.

The Court acknowledged that Ms. Baker would have received more if property had been divided under the FLA. However, the Court held that this difference did not establish significant unfairness.

Spousal Support

Ms. Baker sought spousal support despite the agreement’s waiver.

The Court found that the agreement did not fail to meet the objectives of s. 161 of the FLA. In particular:

• Ms. Baker had not shown that she suffered a career disadvantage because of the relationship.
• She had not sacrificed her career to support Mr. Priebe or his business.
• Her unemployment after separation was not objectively shown to have resulted from the relationship’s breakdown.
• Her education and work experience gave her significant employment skills.
• The money she received under the agreement relieved financial hardship and supported self-sufficiency.
• The income disparity between the parties existed before, during, and after the relationship and was not enough by itself to justify support.

The Court considered the agreement as a whole rather than examining the spousal support waiver in isolation.

Outcome

The Court:

• Refused to set aside the cohabitation agreement.
• Found that the asset schedules were part of the agreement.
• Found that the agreement’s use of “assets” and “property” was not ambiguous or vague.
• Found no procedural unfairness.
• Found no significant unfairness.
• Held that the agreement governed the division of property, family debt, and spousal support.
• Declined to determine property division or spousal support under the FLA.
• Awarded Mr. Priebe his ordinary costs, subject to any further matters the Court had not been told about.

Key Takeaways

• A properly signed and witnessed cohabitation agreement is difficult to overturn.
• A court will assess the agreement as a whole, rather than focusing on isolated words or minor drafting differences.
• Asset schedules should be attached, identified, and signed or initialled whenever possible. Although the Court accepted the schedules here, disputes about attachments can create significant litigation risk.
• The words “assets” and “property” may be treated as having the same practical meaning where the agreement clearly shows that the parties intended to address all listed property.
• Independent legal advice is important evidence of fairness and understanding. Ms. Baker’s extensive legal advice significantly weakened her claim that she did not understand the agreement.
• Immigration concerns alone do not prove duress or exploitation. The evidence must show that one spouse improperly used the other’s immigration situation to obtain agreement.
• Unequal treatment is allowed under the FLA. The fact that one spouse would receive more under the statutory property-division rules does not automatically make a private agreement significantly unfair.
• The court may consider the agreement’s overall financial effect. Payments, gifts, continued employment, housing, and other benefits may be relevant when assessing fairness.
• A spousal support waiver is not assessed in isolation. The court may consider the entire financial arrangement created by the agreement.
• The date a marriage-like relationship begins can affect disclosure obligations and property claims. Evidence of mutual intention, living arrangements, family involvement, finances, and the parties’ own written documents may all be relevant.
• Credibility can determine the result. The Court rejected Ms. Baker’s evidence about the schedules and accepted Mr. Priebe’s evidence where the two accounts conflicted.
• A short or moderate relationship may support enforcement of a negotiated agreement, particularly where the agreement was intended to provide certainty and the parties relied on it.
• For someone considering signing a cohabitation agreement, this decision suggests that they should obtain independent legal advice, complete financial disclosure, clearly identify schedules, and ensure the final signed version matches the version they intend to enforce.

References

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2026/2026bcsc1539/2026bcsc1539.html

The Legal Review Process by Spectrum Family Law

• Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal concerns, please consult with one of our legal professionals.
• Spectrum strives for high-quality, legally verified content.
• Content is meticulously researched and reviewed by our legal writers/proofers (usually local law students).
• Details are sourced from trusted legal sources like the Family Law Act.
• Each article is edited for accuracy, clarity, and relevance.
• If you find any incorrect information or discrepancies in legal facts, we kindly ask that you contact us with a correction to ensure accuracy.