Meiklejohn v. Meiklejohn

Meiklejohn v. Meiklejohn

The appeal was allowed because the husband proved a material change in circumstances and a significant reduction in disposable income due to early retirement; Boston v. Boston did not bar relief because a substantial portion of the pension was not equalized and the wife's economic need and inability to generate income from her assets justified continued support; accordingly spousal support was reduced to $1,200/month indexed to cost of living, effective October 15, 2001, prospectively only.

Citation
C34038
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Guy Paul Meiklejohn; Respondent: Patsy Elizabeth Meiklejohn
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Applications Judge (variation of Spousal Support)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; applications judge's decision set aside; spousal support varied.
Legal Topics
Variation of Support, Separation Agreement, Double Dipping, Pension Equalization, Retroactivity, Cost of Living Indexing
Source Language
English
Family Law Spousal Support Property Division Variation of Support Separation Agreement Double Dipping Pension Equalization Retroactivity +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Guy Paul Meiklejohn

Applicant/appellant

Patsy Elizabeth Meiklejohn

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Applications Judge (variation of Spousal Support)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether early retirement constituted a material change in circumstances
  2. 2 Whether there was a significant change in income warranting variation
  3. 3 Application of the rule against double recovery (double dipping) to pension income

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the husband proved a material change in circumstances and a significant reduction in disposable income due to early retirement; Boston v. Boston did not bar relief because a substantial portion of the pension was not equalized and the wife's economic need and inability to generate income from her assets justified continued support; accordingly spousal support was reduced to $1,200/month indexed to cost of living, effective October 15, 2001, prospectively only.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; applications judge's decision set aside; spousal support varied.

Orders

  • Set aside the judgment of the applications judge (Patricia H. Wallace J.).
  • Reduce spousal support payable by husband to $1,200 per month.