Celebrities Justin Timberlake and wife Jessica Biel made headlines a couple years back when word spread that they had an "infidelity clause" contained within their marriage contract. The clause allegedly stipulates that if Timberlake is unfaithful to Biel, he owes her $500,000.00.
This type of clause is known as a "lifestyle clause," which are more common than you would think. The clauses address non-financial aspects of a marriage, and the range of things in which they can outline is quite vast. While some clauses may stipulate how many times the in-laws are allowed to visit per year, others may set out body-weight requirements (woah), and then of course, there's the ones that speak to extra-marital affairs. Ultimatums about infidelity are among the most popular lifestyle clauses in domestic agreements.
And though infidelity clauses are quite common for celebrities – consider also Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas, or Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie – it isn't only celebrities who choose to include these types of clauses in their relationship agreements.
The general public is making use of lifestyle clauses as well, especially those relating to infidelity. Reason being:
- These types of clauses are a way to ensure financial stability, and
- Having a clause of this type may be an effort on the part of one spouse to prevent (or at least try to prevent) their partner from cheating.
But do they work?
With regards to point (1) above, in order for the clause to afford the wronged spouse any money, the clause must be enforceable in the courts. If the domestic contract is contrary to public policy, despite its validity at the time, the court will not enforce such an agreement.
In Canada, "fault-based divorce" has been eliminated from the legislation. Though the Divorce Act originally provided two grounds for divorce – cruelty/adultery and no-fault – today there is only one ground, which is marriage breakdown (s. 8 of DA). Marriage breakdown is a no-fault ground to divorce.
Because Canada's divorce legislation is "no-fault," including a clause in a contract which explicitly puts a spouse at fault (i.e.: "If you cheat on me you owe me $60,000.00") is most likely unenforceable. Our system is not meant to punish individuals for misbehaviour, and as such, adultery is not a determining factor in asset distribution.
Though an infidelity clause has yet to be challenged in a Canadian court, the D'Andrade v Schrage (2011) decision provides some insight as to how Canadian courts are likely to respond to an infidelity clause in a pre-nuptial agreement.
In this decision, the court rejected the argument that an affair during the negotiations of a marriage agreement (being negotiated after the parties were already married) would void the agreement. The court stated:
"In recognition of the fact that marriages are complicated institutions, whose failure can rarely be attributed to one party or the other, the law has evolved in a fashion that by and large eliminates conduct from the analysis of financial entitlement..."
"...it is important to consider the purpose of the contract in question. It is not to enforce personal obligations such as the duty to remain faithful or the commitment to remain in the relationship. While people may feel that these obligations are part of the marriage "contract", these are not the obligations that domestic contracts are meant to deal with."
In the United States, in a case which challenged an infidelity clause, the court found that the clause in the domestic agreement was not enforceable because it was contrary to the public policy underlying California's no-fault divorce laws.
Based on the above, it's highly improbable that an infidelity clause would be enforced by a Canadian court.
So with regards to the question of "But do they work?", the answer to point (1) is most likely no, but what about point (2)? Will the inclusion of such a clause in a domestic agreement work to keep your spouse faithful?
Reportedly, when Tiger Woods was rumored to be seeking back with ex-wife Elin Nordegren, Nordegren wanted an infidelity clause contained within their pre-nup with a $350 million financial penalty for Woods if he were to ever cheat again.
Of course, whether or not the clause will work as a deterrent depends on each individual. While some spouses argue that these types of clauses are the antidote to adultery, many others may disagree.
Ultimately, every relationship is different and spouses will have to decide which, if any, lifestyle clauses make sense for their relationship. If a couple chooses to insert an infidelity clause in their domestic agreement, as long as the contract has a severability clause, the rest of the contract will remain enforceable (so long as it remains legally valid), even if the adultery clause is not.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
