Filomena M. Andrade

Costs endorsement following litigation over spousal support.

The court found that both parties had acted somewhat unreasonably: the respondent for refusing to agree to a reduction from the original support level set when the payor was employed full time, and the applicant for unilaterally ceasing spousal support contrary to a court order and failing to negotiate realistically regarding quantum and duration.

Despite this conduct on both sides, the respondent was overall substantially more successful in the litigation.

Costs were therefore fixed in favour of the respondent.

The applicant sought to vary his spousal support obligations following his retirement at age 62.

The parties had been married for 26 years, during which the respondent stayed home for eight years to care for their children.

The court found the applicant's retirement constituted a material change in circumstances but declined to impute additional income to him.

The court allowed 'double dipping' into the applicant's pension, finding the support was compensatory in nature.

The applicant was ordered to pay $2,250 per month in spousal support and maintain a $100,000 life insurance policy as security.