The lender claimed possession and the ex-wife claimed the mortgage was unjust because she simply relied on her ex-husband, left all financial decisions to him and did not read the documents. She further claimed that the lender was unconscionable in not investigating that she was in fact divorced and receiving a disability pension.
The court found no unjustness and noted that the Contracts Review Act requires the court to have regard to the public interest in holding parties to their contracts. The court found nothing unjust in the ex-wife signing a mortgage voluntarily even if it was at the insistence of her ex-husband and noted that they had a history of holding mortgages. The court also noted that most of the money was used to pay out a previous mortgage and the wife should not be relieved from this liability in any event. The court also found that the lender was not unconscionable in failing to discover that the wife was divorced and receiving a pension when no mention was made of this in the application she signed and the lender was not required to insist that the wife receive independent advice.