What is the test for determining whether a collusive bargain was not collusive?

Learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon my judgment in Peel v. Peel (1966) 1965 CanLII 400 (SK QB), 55 WWR 202, in support of his submission that this agreement was not a collusive one. In Peel v. Peel, supra, I considered various decisions, and I stated what, in my opinion, constituted a collusive bargain according to the law in effect in this jurisdiction. I there said, as reported at p. 208: “A study of four decisions of the court of appeal of this province leads me to the conclusion that in this jurisdiction the law likewise requires as an essential element in a collusive bargain or agreement an attempt by adverse parties in the action to pervert the course of justice, by entering into such bargain or agreement with an improper, corrupt or dishonest purpose in view. This is the touchstone which, when applied, will distinguish between collusive and non-collusive bargains.”