The appellant wife appealed a review order that reduced her spousal support from $2,700 to $1,350 per month and imposed a termination date.
The parties had been married for 25 years.
The reviewing judge had reduced support based on the respondent husband's expected reduction in income and a finding of 'double-dipping' related to the equalization of his business.
The Divisional Court found that the reviewing judge erred in principle by imposing a time limit on support without analyzing whether the objectives of the Divorce Act were met, noting that time-limited support is only appropriate in unusual circumstances.
The appeal was allowed and the original support order was reinstated.
