Sarah Ronbeck

The moving party sought to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligations, arguing that the responding party had achieved economic self-sufficiency due to an increase in her employment income.

The court found that the responding party's increased income constituted a material change in circumstances.

However, considering the compensatory nature of the original support order and the economic hardship the responding party suffered from the marriage breakdown, the court declined to terminate support.

Instead, the court reduced the monthly spousal support amount retroactively and prospectively based on the parties' updated incomes.

The applicant disputed a garnishment initiated by the respondent to enforce a lump-sum equalization payment and other obligations arising from a prior family law order.

The applicant argued the garnishment was premature and sought numerous offsets relating to alleged property damage, third-party debts, and other financial claims.

The court held that a garnishment hearing under Rule 29(19) of the Family Law Rules is limited to determining whether the underlying court-ordered debt exists and remains unpaid, and cannot be used to vary or expand the substantive order.

Most of the applicant’s alleged offsets were therefore rejected as procedurally improper, and the garnishment was permitted to stand.

The respondent’s motion for contempt was also dismissed, as the alleged breaches did not meet the high threshold for contempt and the order provisions were not sufficiently clear and unequivocal.