“Most of the caselaw provided to the court regarding the reasonableness of a payor’s decision to retire is found in the context of motion to change proceedings. That is, in those cases the court was asked to decide whether the payor’s voluntary decision to retire constituted a material change in circumstances warranting a reduction or termination of spousal support. Although not a motion to change proceeding and this court is tasked with determining the appropriate quantum of spousal support payable at first instance rather than the materiality of a change in circumstances (i.e. retirement), the following themes and principles identified within the caselaw provided are of assistance to the court:
-
-
-
- A payor cannot voluntarily retire early in an effort to frustrate a spousal support obligation. It is appropriate to impute income in such circumstances: Teeple v. Teeple, 1999 CanLII 3127 (ON CA), [1999] O.J. No. 3565 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 9.
- Voluntary retirement, even if not intended to frustrate a spousal support obligation, does not give automatic right to a reduced spousal support obligation. Voluntary retirement may constitute intentional unemployment.
- There is no set age at which people expect to cease working: Bullock v. Bullock, 2004 CanLII 16949 (ON SC), [2004] O.J. No. 909 (Ont. S.C.).
- The effect of voluntary retirement due to a purported medical inability to work is entirely dependent on the specific facts of each case: Hesketh v. Brooker, 2013 ONSC 1122, at para. 22.
- Even in the face of retirement, a spouse’s ability to pay may include his or her capacity to earn an income, either in the job he has chosen to leave or from other employment following retirement: Hickey v. Princ, 2015 ONSC 5596, at para. 60.”
-
-