Kourosh Farrokhzad

The applicant sought spousal support under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act despite a prior separation agreement providing for mutual spousal support releases in exchange for her receiving the respondent’s share of condominium equity.

Applying the two‑stage framework in Miglin v. Miglin, the court accepted that the agreement was properly negotiated but considered whether subsequent circumstances justified departing from it.

The court found that the applicant’s severe and chronic mental health deterioration after the agreement represented a significant departure from the circumstances reasonably contemplated when the agreement was executed, undermining the assumption that she would remain self‑sufficient.

Although the agreement retained weight given the objectives of finality and certainty, strict enforcement would not adequately address the applicant’s economic hardship.

Considering the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and the lump sum already received, the court ordered an additional lump sum spousal support payment.

Following the dismissal of the respondent’s motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the applicant’s claim for support, the court considered costs.

The applicant sought costs as the successful party under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

The respondent argued no costs should be awarded because the motion narrowed issues for trial and because the applicant abandoned a motion for interim support.

The court held that the unsuccessful party should ordinarily pay costs and found no reason to depart from that rule.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $2,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules seeking dismissal of a spousal support claim advanced despite a prior separation agreement containing mutual waivers of support and a property transfer.

The applicant limited her claim to the second stage analysis under Miglin, asserting that current circumstances, including alleged health issues preventing employment, constituted a significant departure from the range of outcomes contemplated by the parties.

The court held that the applicant would need to establish that current circumstances were inconsistent with the objectives of s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act.

Although the court expressed serious doubt that the applicant could meet this threshold on the affidavit record, it concluded that a genuine issue requiring a trial remained.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed and the matter was directed to proceed to trial on the limited issue identified.