The appellant husband appealed a decision dismissing his application to reduce spousal support following his early retirement.
The husband argued the applications judge failed to apply the rule against double-dipping from Boston v. Boston and misapprehended the evidence regarding his income.
The Court of Appeal found that while the rule against double-dipping did not apply because the support was largely based on need, the applications judge did misapprehend the evidence regarding the husband's post-retirement income and expenses.
The appeal was allowed, and spousal support was reduced from $1,800 to $1,200 per month, indexed to the cost of living.
