Lindsay Gardner Mills

The applicant, Galo Angulo, brought a motion to change a 2004 final order requiring him to pay spousal support, seeking termination of support and life insurance obligations due to his retirement.

The respondent, Shirley Angulo, brought a cross-motion seeking extensive financial disclosure, retroactive spousal support arrears, and an increase in ongoing spousal support, alleging Galo retired to evade payments.

The court found Galo's retirement at age 68, with outdated skills and health issues, constituted a reasonable material change in circumstances.

The court denied Shirley's requests for disclosure and retroactive arrears, finding her claims speculative and her delay in seeking arrears unconvincing.

The court emphasized the parties' separation agreement clause requiring them to rely on their capital for support in retirement.

Spousal support and the life insurance obligation were terminated effective April 30, 2019.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to declare that Ontario is the proper jurisdiction to determine the issue of spousal support.

The respondent had commenced a divorce action in Pennsylvania but conceded Ontario's jurisdiction over child-related issues.

The court applied the test for summary judgment and found that Ontario had a real and substantial connection to the parties, as the applicant and child had resided there for over two years.

The court granted partial summary judgment, declaring Ontario the proper jurisdiction for all claims raised in the application, including spousal support.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, interim disbursements, and a non-depletion order following the breakdown of a 51-year traditional marriage.

The respondent husband, who controlled a lucrative family business, had ceased paying support and changed his compensation structure from salary to share redemption, significantly depleting his capital.

The husband brought a cross-motion for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home and cottage.

The court found the husband was deliberately attempting to evade his support and equalization obligations.

The court ordered the husband to pay $20,000 per month in interim spousal support, a retroactive lump sum of $187,500, and $200,000 in interim disbursements.

The court also issued a non-depletion order and adjourned the husband's motion for the sale of the properties to the trial judge.

The party seeking costs sought an award on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful motion.

The court found that the opposing party had acted unreasonably by proceeding with the motion despite being warned that they were in breach of a previous costs order.

Applying the Family Law Rules, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $8,398.

In family law proceedings, the court issued additional reasons following earlier reasons for decision to address an omitted issue relating to life insurance securing support obligations.

The moving party's counsel advised that the court had not ruled on the obligation to maintain life insurance as security for support.

The court clarified that the obligation to maintain life insurance was to terminate on December 31, 2014.

The additional reasons supplemented the earlier decision without altering the substantive support determination.

The applicant sought to terminate his spousal support obligations under a separation agreement following his voluntary early retirement and subsequent reduction in income.

The court found that the applicant's retirement was a reasonable decision and not made in bad faith to avoid support obligations, constituting a material change in circumstances.

To prevent financial hardship to the respondent and promote self-sufficiency, the court ordered a transitional reduction of spousal support to $750 per month for one year, followed by a reduction to $1 annually thereafter.

The appellant father appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice dismissing his motion to vary a separation agreement governing child support obligations and quantifying arrears for special expenses.

The father argued that a material change in circumstances existed due to a decline in his income and an increase in the mother’s means, and that the trial judge erred by failing to adjust his support obligations accordingly.

Applying the principles from Willick v. Willick and the deferential appellate standard described in Housen v. Nikolaisen and Hickey v. Hickey, the court held that the alleged financial deterioration was foreseeable and largely the result of the father’s own choices regarding employment and business ventures.

Because the circumstances relied upon were apparent at the time the agreement was executed and did not constitute a qualifying material change, the refusal to vary the agreement was upheld.

The respondent mother’s cross‑appeal seeking trial costs was also dismissed, as the costs determination fell within the trial judge’s discretion.