MacLeod v. MacLeod

MacLeod v. MacLeod

The applicant retired voluntarily at age 60 and has not demonstrated a material change in circumstances warranting variation: medical evidence did not establish incapacity preventing work, the applicant has available sources to generate income, and the respondent continues to have demonstrated need; therefore the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 NSSC 237
Parties
Applicant: Colin MacLeod; Respondent: Elizabeth MacLeod
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Spousal Support Variation (divorce Act) / Decision on Variation Application
Outcome
Application to reduce or terminate spousal support dismissed; existing CRO spousal support remains in effect; clause 4 enforced requiring $150/month health-coverage payment commencing August 1, 2017; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Variation of Support, Retirement and Support Obligations, Imputation of Income, Enforcement of Corollary Relief Order
Source Language
english
Family Law Spousal Support Divorce Act Variation of Support Retirement and Support Obligations Imputation of Income Enforcement of Corollary Relief Order

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin MacLeod

Applicant

Elizabeth MacLeod

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Spousal Support Variation (divorce Act) / Decision on Variation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a material change in condition, means, needs or other circumstances since the CRO was made
  2. 2 If there is a material change, how it affects the spousal support obligation
  3. 3 Whether clause 4 of the consent corollary relief order (health coverage / $150) should be enforced

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant retired voluntarily at age 60 and has not demonstrated a material change in circumstances warranting variation: medical evidence did not establish incapacity preventing work, the applicant has available sources to generate income, and the respondent continues to have demonstrated need; therefore the variation application is dismissed and clause 4 of the CRO requiring $150/month in lieu of health coverage is enforced.

Court Disposition

Application to reduce or terminate spousal support dismissed; existing CRO spousal support remains in effect; clause 4 enforced requiring $150/month health-coverage payment commencing August 1, 2017; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Costs reserved; parties may schedule submissions on costs upon request