Andrea Himel

The parties separated after eight years of marriage.

The husband's income doubled to over $4.1 million annually after separation.

The trial judge declined to award the Guidelines table amount of over $65,000 per month for four children, instead awarding $16,000 per month under s. 4 based on the family's modest pre-separation lifestyle.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the table amount was inappropriate but found the trial judge erred by failing to adequately consider the post-separation increase in the husband's income and the reasonableness of the wife's proposed budget.

The Court of Appeal increased the child support to $32,000 per month and increased the required life insurance coverage to $2 million.

The appellant husband appealed a motions judge's order increasing spousal support payable to the respondent wife.

The motions judge found a material change in circumstances under s. 17(4) of the Divorce Act due to a significant, unforeseen increase in the appellant's disposable income following an arbitration award.

The Court of Appeal applied the deferential standard of review from Hickey v. Hickey and found no error in the motions judge's application of the Willick test or calculation of support.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.