In the future we will provide cases on the other side which promote equalization of the parties’ incomes.
Thornett v. Thornett  B.C.J. No. 867 (B.C.S.C.) (varied by British Columbia Court of Appeal at  B.C.J. No. 1687 on other issues) – Section 15(7)(d) of the Divorce Act prescribes a liability on the applicant spouse if practicable to seek self-sufficiency. There is no immunity from the responsibility of the applicant spouse for contribution to her own self sufficiency, and the applicant spouse must prove impracticability. In this case, the wife sought spousal support after a 29 year marriage. The Court accepted that the wife had been economically disadvantaged by the marriage, but did not accept that it was impracticable for her to obtain employment. Accordingly, the Court attributed a notional capacity to earn to the wife at the rate of $1,000 per month and ordered the husband to pay spousal support in the amount of $2,500 per month.
Namespetra v. Namespetra  B.C.J. No. 2761 (B.C.S.C.) – The applicant husband, who was healthy and able to work, applied for spousal support from the wife, who was disabled and living on a disability pension. Mr. Justice Crawford found that the husband gave no explanation as to why he had not obtained work, and that it would be repugnant to order support to be paid to the husband from the wife’s disability pension.
Wandich v. Viele  O.J. No. 5 (Ont. S.C.) – The applicant wife had worked as a lawyer and as a chartered accountant prior to the marriage. The wife worked for the husband’s company for part of the time during the relatively short marriage. The husband was 72 years of age at the time of trial and the wife was 47 years of age. The Court held that the applicant wife had not made reasonable efforts to find employment since separation, and that she could have earned substantially more than she had been receiving in interim support if she had applied herself realistically to finding employment. In denying the claim for spousal support, the Court found that the wife ought to have been self-sufficient within one year of the separation.
Kennedy-Dowell v. Dowell  N.S.J. No. 123 (N.S.S.C.) – Applicant husband sought spousal support from the wife. During the marriage, the wife worked at a number of low paying jobs in addition to caring for the children. The husband had been trained and worked for one year as a school teacher before embarking on several unsuccessful business ventures, and he had encouraged the wife to provide monies for the family to live on from her trust fund. Since separation, the husband continued to be self-employed in unsuccessful ventures and claimed that he continued to do so because he needed to travel on Thursday evenings to exercise access to the children. The Court found that this was not a practical reason, and the husband had not justified his reasons for not returning to the teaching profession or finding some other job that would pay him more than his $20,000 annual income from self-employment. The Court held that the husband had ample time in the 2 years since separation to improve his income and that he should be deemed to be self sufficient.
Bensadoun v. Bensadoun  O.J. No. 2023 (Ont. S.C.) – The party claiming support has a duty to make reasonable efforts at self sufficiency, and a Court may impute income where a spouse fails to make such reasonable efforts. In this case, the applicant wife demonstrated entitlement to spousal support. The wife had stayed home and cared for the children during the marriage, occasionally working part-time while the husband worked full-time. However, the Court also held that the wife could work part time as a dental assistant at 30 hours per week and still provide the necessary childcare for the children, aged 7 and 11 years old, and therefore imputed income to her of $15,000 per year.