The appellant appealed an order terminating spousal support following the respondent's retirement.
The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in finding that the respondent's retirement constituted a material change in circumstances and, alternatively, that even if such a change occurred, the trial judge erred in terminating spousal support.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the respondent's retirement at age 57 with a full pension constituted a material change in circumstances under the consent order, which expressly contemplated changes whether "foreseen or foreseeable, unforeseen or unforeseeable." The court also found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the parties' means and needs, including consideration of the appellant's capital assets and the compensatory rationale for spousal support.
The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.
