What is the effect of a mental illness on the application for a variation of maintenance?

He argued that on the facts of the case on appeal, while there may have been an "economic dependency" relating to the marriage as of the date of divorce (January 2, 1985) that when the variation application came on for hearing on May 26, 1988, ample time had elapsed to enable the court to find that it was not the "economic pattern of dependency engendered by the marriage" which resulted in the failure of the respondent to achieve economic self-sufficiency but that the only cause of the petitioner's failure to achieve economic self-sufficiency was the mental illness from which she suffered. As the mental illness was not causally connected to the marriage, in light of Pelech v. Pelech, supra, maintenance should be terminated.

Counsel for the respondent argued that Pelech v. Pelech was not applicable to the facts of the case and that, in any event, there was not such a change in circumstances as would enable the court to terminate maintenance.

I agree with the arguments made by counsel for the respondent and would dismiss the appeal for the following reasons: 1. It is not possible to say that the economic dependence of the respondent at this time is solely the result of her mental illness and not also still the result of the economic pattern of dependency engendered by the marriage. 2. There has not been such a change of circumstances as would permit the making of a variation order, even if Pelech v. Pelech were applicable. 3. The application of Pelech is limited and does not extend to the circumstances in the case on appeal. 4. Marriage gives rise to certain expectations and obligations which increase with its duration and at some point in a long marriage become entrenched.