Daigle v. Daigle

Daigle v. Daigle

The application to vary/terminate spousal support was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove a material change in circumstances under s.17(4.1): the respondent's disabilities and income changes were foreseeable or not proven to be materially different from the time of the Corollary Relief Judgment,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2013 NSSC 205
Parties
Petitioner: Deborah Daigle (now Deborah Currie); Respondent: Henri Daigle
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Divorce Act Application Spousal Support Variation / Hearing and Decision on Variation Application
Outcome
Variation application dismissed
Legal Topics
Variation of Spousal Support, Material Change of Circumstances, Pension Division, Jurisdiction Under Divorce Act S.17(4.1)
Source Language
english
Family Law Divorce Spousal Support Variation of Spousal Support Material Change of Circumstances Pension Division Jurisdiction Under Divorce Act S.17(4.1)

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deborah Daigle (now Deborah Currie)

Petitioner

Henri Daigle

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Divorce Act Application Spousal Support Variation / Hearing and Decision on Variation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a material change in circumstances under s.17(4.1) of the Divorce Act sufficient to vary or terminate spousal support
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's deteriorating health and disability benefits constitute an unforeseen change warranting variation
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's (wife's) increased income or part-year employment constitutes a material change

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary/terminate spousal support was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove a material change in circumstances under s.17(4.1): the respondent's disabilities and income changes were foreseeable or not proven to be materially different from the time of the Corollary Relief Judgment, evidentiary gaps prevented necessary comparison to the original circumstances, and the wife's income changes and employment pattern were foreseeable and not a material change.

Court Disposition

Variation application dismissed

Orders

  • Variation application dismissed
  • No order for costs