Canadian courts are pondering whether governments should override private contracts when people, or their marriages, die. We urge them to tread lightly on wills, but more heavily on prenuptials.

In one case, which may be appealed, a judge upheld a woman's will depriving some nieces and nephews of any inheritance because they didn't attend her funeral. In another, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear an appeal of a ruling that a prenuptial agreement can't overrule B.C. provincial matrimonial law. The specifics we leave to the courts. But the principles are of concern to all citizens.

No private contract is valid if it offends against public policy. . . .

Even contracts that don't offend the law could be invalid if they violate normal expectations. A will that secretly leaves a pittance from a large fortune to a spouse of 50 years for buttering the wrong side of the toast would likely not withstand court scrutiny. But while legal arrangements that were clearly entered into by persons of unsound mind are not valid, eccentricity is not insanity. . . .

Marriage is somewhat different. If it were just another agreement between consenting adults, it could be left to ordinary contract law. But family formation is so fundamental that the state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that it is done reasonably fairly. That interest continues even when a marriage breaks down.

A one-size-fits-all divorce formula isn't the answer, but there must be legal boundaries on how destitute a divorce can leave one party, . . .