BC Court of Appeal upholds monthly spousal support for ex-RCMP officer despite claims of hardship

In a recent ruling, the BC Court of Appeal has ordered the husband, who has retired from the RCMP, to continue paying monthly spousal support despite claims of financial hardship.

In Boonstra v. Boonstra, 2024 BCCA 153, Berwyn Boonstra and Colette Boonstra (now Farnworth) were married for 23 years. The couple, who separated in 2013 and finalized their divorce in 2016, initially agreed through mediation that Berwyn would pay spousal support. The agreement included provisions for review once their youngest child was no longer dependent or upon a material change in circumstances.

In 2020, when the review was triggered by the youngest child's independence, Colette sought to increase the monthly support to $1,763 until she reached 65, citing Berwyn’s updated income.

However, the reviewing judge set the support at $838 per month until October 2031, aligning with Berwyn’s 65th birthday. This decision was based partly on Berwyn’s early retirement from the RCMP due to a cycling accident and subsequent diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, which shifted him to a fixed income composed of pension and disability benefits.

Berwyn challenged the continuation of spousal support, arguing that his financial circumstances had worsened since the original order, particularly with his transition to fixed income following medical discharge. He also raised concerns about double recovery by Colette, who received a portion of his pension as family property and now benefits from his ongoing pension payments calculated into his income for spousal support.

Despite these arguments, the Court of Appeal found no material error in the lower court's decision. The appellate judge pointed out that the lower court had properly considered Berwyn’s early retirement and its implications on his pension and disability benefits. The decision also noted that while there is a theoretical risk of double recovery, the judge had found Colette’s financial need justified the inclusion of the pension as income.

Furthermore, the appellate court supported the lower court's exclusion of Veteran Affairs Canada (VAC) Benefits from Berwyn’s income calculation for support purposes. These benefits were instead considered in the broader assessment of his financial means, supporting a spousal support award at the higher end of the guideline range.