Retirement and Spousal Support: Why Payments Don’t Automatically Stop

Retirement changes a person’s finances, but it does not automatically end an existing spousal support obligation. In Ontario, retirement may justify reconsidering support, including its amount and duration. The outcome depends on the circumstances of both former spouses and the legal basis for support.

A reduced income is only part of the analysis. Courts may also consider the recipient’s health, the economic consequences of the marriage, the support already paid, and the financial resources available to each party. As former spouses enter retirement, those resources may include savings and investments rather than employment income alone.

In Starra v. Starra, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld an order reducing support during a transition period and terminating it afterward. The decision illustrates how courts balance continuing support needs against the financial realities of retirement.

A Long Marriage and an Approaching Retirement

The parties separated after a 25-year marriage and later resolved spousal support through a final consent order. Support was set at the middle of the applicable range based on the husband’s income, with no income attributed to the wife. His income at the time was approximately $425,284.

Years later, the wife sought increased support based on deteriorating health, rising medical expenses, and her continued inability to work. The husband sought to terminate support because he was preparing to retire and expected his income to decrease.

By that point, he had paid approximately $2.1 million in spousal support since separation. Both parties were in their sixties and had substantial assets. The Court described their net worths as fairly similar, although the wife’s was higher.

Retirement Can Justify Reconsidering an Existing Order

Before varying an existing spousal support order, the Court must be satisfied that the required change in circumstances has occurred. Retirement may qualify as a material change, but it does not automatically establish that support should end.

In Starra, the Court accepted that the husband’s retirement and corresponding decrease in income constituted a material change. The original order did not specify an end date, and there was no evidence that the impact of retirement had been assessed when that order was made.

The Court also accepted that the significant increase in the wife’s medical expenses constituted a material change. Changes on both sides, therefore, warranted reconsideration of support. The next question was what arrangement would reflect the parties’ current circumstances and the objectives of spousal support.

The Objectives of Support Remain Relevant After Retirement

The Divorce Act identifies several objectives of spousal support. These include addressing economic advantages and disadvantages arising from the marriage or its breakdown, sharing financial consequences associated with caring for children, relieving hardship caused by the breakdown, and encouraging economic self-sufficiency where practicable.

Section 15.2(6) sets out these objectives for initial support orders, while section 17(7) addresses the objectives of orders varying support. Economic self-sufficiency is qualified by what is practicable within a reasonable time. It is not an assumption that every recipient can return to work or replace support with employment income.

In Starra, the wife had given up career opportunities during the marriage and experienced lasting economic disadvantages. The Court recognized both compensatory support, connected to those disadvantages, and non-compensatory support, connected to need.

Health and a Long Marriage Can Support Continuing Entitlement

The wife’s inability to work was not disputed. She also had significant medical expenses, which had increased from approximately $28,000 in 2013 to a projected $40,000 in 2022 and an estimated $45,000 in 2024.

In Schulstad v. Schulstad, the Ontario Court of Appeal explained that a recipient’s need must be assessed in light of the marital standard of living and their earning capacity. However, the payor’s reduced income following retirement also affects the analysis.

These considerations require a balanced assessment. A recipient’s continuing need does not necessarily preserve the previous amount of support indefinitely, while the payor’s retirement does not erase the economic consequences of a long marriage.

Savings and Investments Become Part of the Retirement Picture

Retirement often shifts the focus from employment income to the resources accumulated during working life. As people age, they may need to draw on capital to meet their expenses.

In Boston v. Boston, the Supreme Court of Canada considered support after retirement where pension value had already been shared through property equalization. In that context, the Court explained that a recipient receiving compensatory support has an obligation to make reasonable income-producing use of equalized assets to help provide for future support. The Court also acknowledged the difficulties of achieving self-sufficiency after a long marriage.

The husband in Starra also relied on case law concerning the attribution of income where a spouse has not reasonably used financial resources to generate income or explained the absence of income. The wife emphasized her health, medical costs, and inability to work. The Court therefore had to consider her needs alongside both parties’ available resources.

The Court Ordered a Transition Period Before Support Ended

The Court did not order an immediate end to support. It recognized the wife’s continuing entitlement and ordered reduced payments during a further two-year transition period.

Support was ordered to terminate on September 30, 2026, when the wife would be 65 and the husband 66. The Court concluded that, by then, the objectives of support would have been met, taking account of the parties’ circumstances and financial resources.

The wife appealed. She argued that approximately 11 years of payments under the final order had not adequately compensated her for a 25-year marriage, particularly given her serious health conditions and continuing economic disadvantage.

The Court of Appeal Considered the Health and Family Violence Evidence

The wife also argued that insufficient weight had been given to the effects of family violence on her health and ability to earn income. She maintained that her chronic post-traumatic stress disorder was attributable to abuse during the marriage.

The Court of Appeal found that the lower Court had considered this evidence. The Court had accepted her psychological and physical health problems and inability to work, while declining to attribute her PTSD solely to the husband, given evidence of childhood abuse. It had also accepted increased medical costs, while finding that some of the increase reflected treatment choices.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the support termination decision. It concluded that the lower Court had considered the relevant circumstances, including the long marriage, the wife’s health, the husband’s retirement, and the parties’ assets.

An Appeal Requires More Than Disagreement With the Outcome

Support decisions attract considerable appellate deference because they involve discretion and a detailed assessment of the parties’ circumstances. An appeal court does not simply reconsider the evidence and substitute its preferred result.

As the Supreme Court of Canada explained in Hickey v. Hickey, intervention requires an error warranting appellate correction, such as a material error, a serious misunderstanding of the evidence, or an error of law. A different view of how the factors should have been balanced is insufficient.

Starra does not establish a fixed retirement age or transition period for ending support. It illustrates why retirement-related support disputes require consideration of both spouses’ finances, continuing needs, and the objectives of the existing obligation.

Johnson Miller Family Lawyers: Windsor-Essex Lawyers for Spousal Support and Retirement Disputes

Retirement can raise important questions about reducing, continuing, or terminating spousal support. Johnson Miller Family Lawyers assists clients in Windsor-Essex County with spousal support variations, retirement-related support disputes, separation agreements, and divorce proceedings. Whether a support payor is approaching retirement or a recipient is concerned about ongoing financial needs, contact us online or call (519) 973-1500 to discuss available options.