What is the effect of the Court of Appeal's "Chivalric Order" declaration on an unconscionable marital agreement?

Few judicial declarations of arcane purpose recast human norms. Declaring the partners in a decaying marriage to be members of a new Chivalric order is not likely to make them leap to the guardianship of each other's interests. Advising the divorcing that being honest may not be enough because truth in marital bargaining must be insured, and that agreements, although conscientiously arrived at, are likely to be undone if any representations along the way are proven either wrong or unsupportable, will simply produce more litigation and fewer settlements. As here. On the other hand, there is a solid social objective that is met in the upholding of marital settlements where, minimally, the parties have independent counsel and the emerging agreement is not unconscionable. The common sense of this proposition lies in the judgment of Madam Justice Wilson in Pelech v. Pelech (1987) 1987 CanLII 57 (SCC), 7 R.F.L. (3d) 225, 269 (S.C.C). WAS THE M. AGREEMENT UNCONSCIONABLE IN ANY EVENT?