The parties separated after a 20-year marriage during which they built a successful recreational equipment business.
The trial judge ordered the husband to pay $9,584 per month in spousal support, attributing $400,000 in annual income to him based on past corporate profits.
The husband appealed.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by failing to apply the Child Support Guidelines to determine the husband's income and by adopting an unreasonable approach to estimating future corporate profits.
The Court reassessed the husband's income at $214,872 and the wife's income at $109,535, and substituted a spousal support order of $1,500 per month.
