Hey, of course I remember! How are you?
If NV law entitles you to support and an interest in matrimonial property, as Saskatchewan does, then you start on the assumption that this entitlement exists and is in your favour.
If he is then trying to remove this entitlement, then the onus is on him to prove that the post-nup excludes you.
I can't think of any case law offhand and I don't have access to NV case law, however it is basic law that you start with what the law says and if someone seeks to override that, then they have the obligation to satisfy the court that grounds exist to deviate from the rules or law on the subject.
If the law says you have an entitlement, you need not prove your entitlement. If he wants to claim that you do not have the entitlement provided for in law, then he has the burden of proof to satisfy the judge that the law does not apply in this circumstance.
This should be clear to the judge. I can't imagine why they would have an issue understanding this.
If he argues that the post-nup should exclude you from any entitlement, then you would then want to provide argument as to why it doesn't, starting with the fact that the law provides the entitlement. Then you'd discuss the manner in which it was obtained.
Hope this helps.