Robert Cossette planned to get out of alimony after his retirement but and Ontario court has ordered him to continue paying $1,000 month to his ex-wife. (Facebook picture)

Robert Cossette planned to get out of alimony after his retirement but and Ontario court has ordered him to continue paying $1,000 month to his ex-wife. (Facebook picture)

Robert Cossette planned to get out of alimony after his retirement but and Ontario court has ordered him to continue paying $1,000 month to his ex-wife. (Facebook picture)

Robert Cossette planned to get out of alimony after his retirement but and Ontario court has ordered him to continue paying $1,000 month to his ex-wife. (Facebook picture)

Robert Cossette planned to get out of alimony after his retirement but and Ontario court has ordered him to continue paying $1,000 month to his ex-wife. (Facebook picture)

Robert Cossette planned to get out of alimony after his retirement but and Ontario court has ordered him to continue paying $1,000 month to his ex-wife. (Facebook picture)

Robert Cossette planned to get out of alimony after his retirement but and Ontario court has ordered him to continue paying $1,000 month to his ex-wife. (Facebook picture)

TORONTO

Federal civil servant Robert Cossette thought by taking early retirement at 55, his days of alimony payments were done.

He was wrong.

In fact, unless spelled out in your separation agreement, you could be on the hook for the rest of your life. “At times you will not be allowed to retire if the court wants you to continue paying support,” warns Ottawa family lawyer Wade Smith.

In his client’s case, a panel of the Divisional Court Divisional Court this week upheld a lower court ruling that refused to consider Cossette’s voluntary retirement from the civil service as a “material change in circumstance” that could end his support obligations. “The motions judge specifically found that one of the reasons for Mr. Cossette’s retirement was the desire to stop paying spousal support,” noted the three-member panel.

“We agree with his conclusion that retirement was not a material change. Parties cannot sidestep support obligations by unilaterally deciding to leave the workforce.”

Smith says his client is now considering taking the case to the Ontario Court of Appeal. “I think most people think that when they retire, their obligations will end. That was certainly Mr. Cossette’s expectation.”

Cossette had put in his 33 years at work and supported two children. His ex was now employed and making the same as he draws from his pension. “He thought he’d crossed the finish line,” Smith said.

But in Ontario, there’s no definitive law on when you can stop paying support; instead, it’s on a case by case basis. “I think it’s a significant problem,” the lawyer said. “Sometimes it’s support for life and sometimes it’s not. It’s something that should be clarified.”

The Cossettes married in 1979, when he was 20 and she was 21. They separated after 22 years of marriage and in a 2006 court settlement, he agreed to pay $1,000 a month in alimony for an indefinite period.

Seven years later, he took early retirement from his $104,000 a year government position. Cossette then applied to the court to stop paying spousal support, citing his “material change in circumstance.”

When the matter was first heard in 2014, Cossette claimed that he had to retire early because his lifelong battle with depression meant he couldn’t continue working. The court didn’t buy it. They saw no evidence of any psychological or psychiatric reports or anything except a family doctor’s report that he’d prescribed an anti-depressant to help him deal with stress.

“While Mr. Cossette may have been stressed and/or depressed that he was paying spousal support, that is an unfortunate reality of life,” the court noted with little sympathy. “His reality is that he retired at 55 and moved across the country, is staying in shape, is mountain climbing, has purchased a new house and is engaged to be married.”

They viewed his voluntary retirement as an attempt at a “get out of support early card” and ordered him to continue paying alimony.

Now living in Calgary, Cossette appealed to the Divisional Court, but this time didn’t press the depression issue. Instead, his lawyer argued that someone shouldn’t be forced to continue working past their eligible retirement date just to satisfy their support payments.

The judges disagreed. “Mr. Cossette’s retirement should not operate as either a sword or a shield — it should not, in the circumstances of this case, immunize him from ongoing support payments.”

The lesson, the court added, is that divorcing couples should consider the issue of retirement and support in their separation agreement.

His ex-wife is relieved, says her lawyer, Pam MacEachern. She believes the decision will have repercussions for other divorced baby boomers who assumed they could leave the rat race early.

“He was arguing that he gets to retire — I’ve worked long enough, I don’t have to work anymore and I’m going to go climb mountains,” MacEachern said.

Lucky for him. But that doesn’t mean his ex-wife should suffer. Or as her lawyer says, “she can’t afford to retire.”