The moving party brought a motion for temporary relief within a motion to change a final consent order, seeking to terminate his spousal support obligations and fix arrears.
He argued that his income had significantly decreased since his days as a successful mining executive, culminating in a consumer proposal.
The court dismissed the motion for temporary relief, finding no material change in circumstances because his current income was comparable to the income known and imputed to him at the time the final consent order was made in 2014.
The court held that a trial was necessary to resolve conflicting evidence regarding his income deductions and actual financial means.
