Alexander v. Alexander, (1999) 178 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 343 (NFTD)

• Judge: Hall, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
• Case Date: July 14, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1999), 178 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 343 (NFTD)

Alexander v. Alexander (1999), 178 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 343 (NFTD);

    544 A.P.R. 343

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. AU.009

Ronald Joseph Alexander (petitioner) v. Rita Mary Alexander (respondent)

(1999 HV/GB No. 778)

Indexed As: Alexander v. Alexander

Newfoundland Supreme Court

Trial Division

Hall, J.

July 27, 1999.

Summary:

Pursuant to a separation agreement, the wife had custody of the child of the marriage and the husband paid $500 monthly child support. He also paid $300 monthly spousal support. After a year and a half, the child moved to live with his father. The husband petitioned for divorce and sought child support from the wife in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines. The wife sought spousal support of $800 per month for five years with a right to vary if not self-sufficient. The divorce was granted. The issue of child support was postponed until the court decided the issue of spousal sup­port.

The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, dismissed the claim for spousal support.

Family Law - Topic 4006

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Effect of agreements - A separ­ation agreement provided, inter alia, that a wife would have custody of the child of the marriage and receive $500/month child support - It also provided that $300/month spousal support was payable for two years and "may be varied if there is a change in circumstances ..." - After a year and a half, the child went to live with his father - The husband petitioned for a divorce and child support from the wife - The wife sought a variation of the support provisions she had agreed to - the Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, declined to vary the spousal support in the absence of a change in circumstances - The agreement was respected because the parties had negoti­ated their agreement freely and on the advice of counsel and it was not uncon­scionable.

Cases Noticed:

Tully v. Tully (1993), 49 R.F.L.(3d) 31 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 23].

Colp v. Colp (1994), 128 N.S.R.(2d) 132; 359 A.P.R. 132; 1 R.F.L.(4th) 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Pelech v. Pelech, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 801; 76 N.R. 81; [1987] 4 W.W.R. 481; 7 R.F.L.(3d) 225; 14 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 17 C.P.C.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 27].

Statutes Noticed:

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, sect. 17(1)(a), sect. 17(4.1), sect. 17(7), sect. 17(10) [para. 26].

Authors and Works Noticed:

MacDonald, James C., and Wilton, Ann, The Annotated Divorce Act (1999), pp. 442, 443 [para. 22]; 449 [para. 24].

Counsel:

Jennifer Mercer (Miller & Hearn), for the petitioner;

Marie Greene, for the respondent.

This application was heard on July 14, 1999, before Hall, J., of the Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on July 27, 1999.