Case information

Family law — Support — Spousal support — Insurance — Personal insurance — Support payor retiring and applying to vary existing support order — Support recipient having dissipated assets received on equalization and having little income of her own — Does discretionary nature of s. 15.2 (1) require the court to order security in the form of life insurance at all times that a spousal support order is granted? — Can the court do so without evidence or consideration of any factors? — Can a judge order that a payor obtain a life insurance policy as security if it is not in existence at the time of the application or appeal? — Is the court required to invoke the needs based exception to double dipping in Boston when a support recipient has not made any attempt to use equalized assets in an income producing way? — What is the appropriate support, if any, payable to a spouse who has not made any attempt to discharge their obligations under s. 17(7) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp,)?

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Mr. and Ms. Bone were married in 1974, separated in 2001 and divorced in 2003, having raised four children together. Ms. Bone was employed until the birth of the first child but, after that, became a full-time homemaker while Mr. Bone pursued his career. In 2003, after a summary trial, the court ordered a matrimonial property division and spousal support in the amount $8,000 per month payable to Ms. Bone. Ms. Bone was also entitled to share in any bonuses that Mr. Bone might receive. Mr. Bone was further required to maintain a term life insurance policy of $200,000 in favour of Ms. Bone. Each party received more than $1 million in assets and an equalization of Mr. Bone’s pension and supplemental pension. Mr. Bone complied with every aspect of the 2003 order. In 2019, he applied to vary the spousal support and life insurance provisions of the original order on the basis that his retirement and reduction in income constituted a material change in circumstances. Ms. Bone was by then receiving approximately $10,000 per month in spousal support, but had very little income of her own. She had dissipated all of the assets that she had acquired years before in the division of matrimonial assets. In contrast, Mr. Bone had significantly increased his net worth by continuing to work and taking advantage of various investment opportunities. At the time of the applications, Mr. Bone was 73 and Ms. Bone was 71. The chambers judge varied the spousal support payable to $3,000 per month and terminated the order requiring Mr. Bone to maintain life insurance. Ms. Bone’s appeal was allowed and her spousal support was increased to $4500 per month. Mr. Bone was also required to obtain life insurance with a face amount of $100,000.