Thorne v. Thorne, (1998) 115 B.C.A.C. 43 (CA)

Judge:Lambert, Rowles and Hall, JJ.A.
Court:Court of Appeal of British Columbia
Case Date:November 04, 1998
Jurisdiction:British Columbia
Citations:(1998), 115 B.C.A.C. 43 (CA)
 
FREE EXCERPT

Thorne v. Thorne (1998), 115 B.C.A.C. 43 (CA);

   189 W.A.C. 43

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] B.C.A.C. TBEd. DE.055

Kathleen Amelia Elizabeth Thorne (petitioner/respondent) v. Garfield Warren Thorne (respondent/appellant)

(CA024202)

Indexed As: Thorne v. Thorne

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Lambert, Rowles and Hall, JJ.A.

November 26, 1998.

Summary:

A divorced husband applied to terminate or alternatively, to vary, an order for spousal maintenance made under the Divorce Act. The trial judge dismissed the application. The husband appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Family Law - Topic 4017

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance awards - Periodic payments - Variation of - A couple, married for 36 years before divorcing, entered a consent spousal sup­port order in June 1997 - Six months later, the husband applied to rescind or vary the order - The husband, age 56, alleged a change in circumstances by a drop in his company's revenue occurring through the loss of an account, yet the company's financial statements showed an increase in gross revenue - The 57 year old wife's modest income had increased from $200 to $524 per month and she had some shared living expenses from a boarder - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that there was no material change in cir­cumstances sufficient to warrant a variation in maintenance.

Cases Noticed:

Oakley v. Oakley (1985), 48 R.F.L.(2d) 307 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

L.G. v. G.B., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 367; 165 N.R. 237; 61 Q.A.C. 179, refd to. [para. 14].

Willick v. Willick, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670; 173 N.R. 321; 125 Sask.R. 81; 81 W.A.C. 81; 6 R.F.L.(4th) 161; 119 D.L.R.(4th) 405, refd to. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, sect. 17(1), sect. 17(4.1), sect. 17(6), sect. 17(7) [para. 13].

Counsel:

Russell S. Tretiak, Q.C., for the appellant;

Leslie J. Wallace, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Lambert, Rowles and Hall, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal at Vancouver, British Columbia on November 4, 1998. The decision of the court was delivered on No­vember 26, 1998, when the following opinions were filed:

Rowles, J.A. (Lambert, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 27;

Hall, J.A. (Lambert, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 28 to 30.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP