Michael B. Wannop

The applicant sought interim spousal support following the breakdown of a 21‑year relationship and marriage with no dependent children.

The respondent acknowledged entitlement but disputed quantum, arguing declining corporate income and health issues.

The court applied the objectives of spousal support under the Divorce Act and principles governing interim support, emphasizing rough justice and maintaining the marital standard of living where the payor’s ability permits.

The court considered corporate income and retained earnings available to the respondent through a closely held corporation.

Interim spousal support of $8,500 per month was ordered, with retroactive effect and ancillary orders regarding health benefits and life insurance.

Costs endorsement following litigation over spousal support.

The court found that both parties had acted somewhat unreasonably: the respondent for refusing to agree to a reduction from the original support level set when the payor was employed full time, and the applicant for unilaterally ceasing spousal support contrary to a court order and failing to negotiate realistically regarding quantum and duration.

Despite this conduct on both sides, the respondent was overall substantially more successful in the litigation.

Costs were therefore fixed in favour of the respondent.

The applicant sought to vary his spousal support obligations following his retirement at age 62.

The parties had been married for 26 years, during which the respondent stayed home for eight years to care for their children.

The court found the applicant's retirement constituted a material change in circumstances but declined to impute additional income to him.

The court allowed 'double dipping' into the applicant's pension, finding the support was compensatory in nature.

The applicant was ordered to pay $2,250 per month in spousal support and maintain a $100,000 life insurance policy as security.