The appellant sought spousal maintenance in the divorce proceeding notwithstanding an antecedent settlement agreement that limited support to one year.
The majority held that the same stringent approach governing variation of support orders applied where a court was asked under s. 11(1) of the Divorce Act to depart from a prior settlement agreement, requiring a radical change in circumstances tied to a marriage-related pattern of economic dependency.
On the facts, there had been no relevant change in circumstances, public assistance alone was insufficient, and concerns arising from custody of a child were properly addressed through child support rather than spousal support.
The appeal was dismissed and the escalator clause inserted by the trial judge could not stand.
