Vancouver Spousal Support Lawyers of MacLean Law Will Protect You
Lorne N. MacLean, QC has successfully helped clients deal with hundreds of Vancouver spousal support cases over the past 33 years. He heads BC’s largest family law firm with 18 lawyers and 4 offices across BC. Our Vancouver Spousal Support Lawyers explain that spousal support can often be viewed as a slightly more complicated version of the tale of Robin Hood.
As you’ll see at the bottom of this article, a number of complicating factors make spousal support law a land mine for unwary spouses after marriage breakdown. Don’t make the biggest mistake of your life, call us at 604-602-9000 or click here to meet with us. High net worth individuals who make a mistake often greatly magnify the error so don’t delay. Lorne MacLean, QC has helped set the law of support in the Supreme Court of Canada and our own BC Court Of Appeal, by successfully tripling spousal support trial judgments, obtaining some of the highest spousal support awards in BC and at the same time forcing recipient spouses to be accountable and to work to become self sufficient.
The Tale of Robin Hood and Vancouver Spousal Support?
Our Vancouver Spousal Support Lawyers explain Vancouver spousal support is paid by a spouse who earns more to the other spouse who earns less. Support can be ordered on contractual grounds (there is a marriage agreement) compensatory grounds (someone gave up their career for example to be a homemaker) or non-compensatory grounds (someone was not prejudiced by their role in the marriage but they need money to make ends meet). When you need support or are being asked to pay support and you are unsure of what’s fair, it pays to meet with the skilled and tenacious Vancouver Spousal Support Lawyers at MacLean Law. Too many people try to be a hero and overpay and too many people try to be a martyr and take too little or nothing leaving them in financially desperate straits. Don’t make a huge support mistake when you can meet with our Vancouver Spousal Support Lawyers MNP Tower office of MacLean Law now.
Vancouver Spousal Support Lawyers Summarize A Recent Case That Explains How Spousal Support Works
Our Vancouver Spousal Support Lawyers at MacLean Law are pleased to summarize a recent Vancouver spousal support case that reviews how spousal support works in detail:
[12] The relevant factors to consider in this claim for spousal support are set out in the Divorce Act.
* 15.2 (1) A court of competent jurisdiction may, on application by either or both spouses, make an order requiring a spouse to secure or pay, or to secure and pay, such lump sum or periodic sums, or such lump sum and periodic sums, as the court thinks reasonable for the support of the other spouse.* …
Vancouver Spousal Support Lawyers highlight the key statutory principles the court looks at
(4) In making an order under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2), the court shall take into consideration the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse, including
o (a) the length of time the spouses cohabited;
o (b) the functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation; and
o (c) any order, agreement or arrangement relating to support of either spouse.
* …
(6) An order made under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2) that provides for the support of a spouse should
o (a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown;
o (b) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage;
o (c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and
o (d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.
[13] In Chutter v. Chutter, 2008 BCCA 507, the Court of Appeal outlined that a spousal support order can be made on a compensatory or non-compensatory basis (as well as on a contractual basis). Rowles J.A. said:
[47] Based on the statutory provisions and the case authorities, the Supreme Court of Canada has identified three grounds for entitlement to spousal support: (1) compensatory support, which primarily relates to the first two objectives of the Divorce Act; (2) non-compensatory support, which primarily relates to the third and fourth objectives; and (3) contractual support (Bracklow v. Bracklow, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420 at paras. 15, 41-42, 44 R.F.L. (4th) 1).
[48] The claim for spousal support in this case was advanced on compensatory and non-compensatory support principles.
[49] Although the compensatory and non-compensatory grounds for spousal support are animated by different models of marriage, the case authorities hold that there is no single basis of support or objective under the Divorce Act that supersedes the other, and that many claims involve aspects of both compensatory and non-compensatory principles (Bracklow, at para. 27; Moge, at 852). A court is not called upon to decide on one basis for support to the exclusion of the other but rather to “[apply] the relevant factors and strik[e] the balance that best achieves justice in the particular case” (Bracklow, at para. 32). Moreover, the doctrine of equitable sharing is the overarching principle that must be borne in mind (Moge, at 864).
Vancouver Spousal Support Lawyers highlight the rules for Vancouver spousal support based on compensatory grounds:
[14] Rowles J.A. described compensatory support:
[50] Compensatory support is intended to provide redress to the recipient spouse for economic disadvantage arising from the marriage or the conferral of an economic advantage upon the other spouse. The compensatory support principles are rooted in the “independent” model of marriage, in which each spouse is seen to retain economic autonomy in the union, and is entitled to receive compensation for losses caused by the marriage or breakup of the marriage which would not have been suffered otherwise (Bracklow, at paras. 24, 41). The compensatory basis for relief recognizes that sacrifices made by a recipient spouse in assuming primary childcare and household responsibilities often result in a lower earning potential and fewer future prospects of financial success (Moge, at 861-863; Bracklow, at para. 39). In Moge, the Supreme Court of Canada observed, at 867-868:
The most significant economic consequence of marriage or marriage breakdown, however, usually arises from the birth of children. This generally requires that the wife cut back on her paid labour force participation in order to care for the children, an arrangement which jeopardizes her ability to ensure her own income security and independent economic well‑being. In such situations, spousal support may be a way to compensate such economic disadvantage.
[51] In addition to acknowledging economic disadvantages suffered by a spouse as a consequence of the marriage or its breakdown, compensatory spousal support may also address economic advantages enjoyed by the other partner as a result of the recipient spouse’s efforts. As noted in Moge at 864, the doctrine of equitable sharing of the economic consequences of marriage and marriage breakdown underlying compensatory support “seeks to recognize and account for both the economic disadvantages incurred by the spouse who makes such sacrifices and the economic advantages conferred upon the other spouse” (emphasis added).
[52] The Court in Moge discussed the relevance of the parties’ standards of living in the context of compensatory support at 870:
Although the doctrine of spousal support which focuses on equitable sharing does not guarantee to either party the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, this standard is far from irrelevant to support entitlement…. As marriage should be regarded as a joint endeavour, the longer the relationship endures, the closer the economic union, the greater will be the presumptive claim to equal standards of living upon its dissolution.
Vancouver Spousal Support Lawyers highlight the rules that provide for an award of needs based non-compensatory support:
[15] She also described non-compensatory support:
[54] Where compensatory principles do not apply, need alone may be sufficient to ground a claim for spousal support (Bracklow, at para. 43). Non‑compensatory support is grounded in the “social obligation model” of marriage, in which marriage is seen as an interdependent union. It embraces the idea that upon dissolution of a marriage, the primary burden of meeting the needs of the disadvantaged spouse falls on his or her former partner, rather than the state (Bracklow, at para. 23). Non-compensatory support aims to narrow the gap between the needs and means of the spouses upon marital breakdown, and as such, it is often referred to as the “means and needs” approach to spousal support.
[55] The concept of “needs” in the context of non-compensatory spousal support goes beyond basic necessities of life and varies according to the circumstances of the parties. As stated by Finch J.A. (as he then was) in Myers v. Myers (1995), 17 R.F.L. (4th) 298, 65 B.C.A.C. 226, at para. 10:
“Need” or “needs” are not absolute quantities. They may vary according to the circumstances of the parties and the family unit as a whole. “Need” does not end when the spouse seeking support achieves a subsistence level of income or any level of income above subsistence. “Needs” is a flexible concept and is one of several considerations which a trial judge must take into account in deciding whether any order for spousal support is warranted.
[56] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Allaire v. Allaire (2003), 170 O.A.C. 72, 35 R.F.L. (5th) 256, held that self-sufficiency, a spousal support objective primarily related to non-compensatory support (Bracklow, at paras. 41-42), was a relative concept informed by the standard of living previously enjoyed by the parties:
[21] … self-sufficiency is not a free-standing concept. It must be seen in the context of the standard of living previously enjoyed by the parties. Where, as here, the economic consequences of the marital relationship were to permanently reduce Ms. Allaire’s income, it is inappropriate to consider Ms. Allaire’s annual income of $68,000 as “sufficient” without considering whether Mr. Allaire can financially assist her to live a lifestyle closer to what they shared as a couple.
[57] In Yemchuk v. Yemchuk, 2005 BCCA 406 at paras. 41, 48-49, 16 R.F.L. (6th) 430, Prowse J.A. referred to Myers and further held that in the context of a long-term marriage involving a sharing of resources, the concept of “need” should take into account the relative standards of living of the spouses following the marriage breakdown. In Yemchuk, the husband had appealed the decision of the trial judge dismissing his claim for spousal support on the basis that he had not established any need. While Prowse J.A. found that the husband was entitled to spousal support on compensatory grounds, she also went on to state that the trial judge’s treatment of the husband’s need for support had been “unduly restrictive”:
[41] I am also satisfied that the trial judge erred in viewing Mr. Yemchuk’s “need” for support from too narrow a perspective. He treated “need” as solely a question of whether Mr. Yemchuk could meet his stated expenses with the income available to him. After attributing $800-$1,000 per month to Mr. Yemchuk, the trial judge found that Mr. Yemchuk could meet his expenses and, therefore, was not entitled to support.
Our Vancouver Spousal Support Lawyers know the area of spousal support is tricky and you must ensure both parties are working to their capacity, as the right incomes have to be used for the calculations we make to lead to a fair result. Self sufficiency, retirement, re-partnering, self employment, the presence of children and the custodial arrangement, underemployed spouses all require a tough and experienced lawyer to sort through. Call us at 604-602-9000 to ensure you are protected.
