Lorne N. MacLean, QC founder of our team of skilled Vancouver Calgary High End Support SSAG Lawyers, reviews an important recent BC Supreme court spousal support case today. MacLean Law’s Vancouver Calgary High End Support SSAG Lawyers, at Top Choice Awards Best family Law Firm*, handle hundreds of spousal support cases each year. Our Vancouver Calgary High End Support SSAG Lawyers know that there is a range for amount and how long support is paid that cannot simply be set at the “mid-point” range. Entitlement needs to be properly assessed and argued before any computer generated amount is simply agreed to.
Meet with our skilled Vancouver Calgary High End Support SSAG Lawyers at any of our 6 offices located in Vancouver, Calgary, Surrey, Kelowna, Fort St John and Richmond BC.
Vancouver Calgary High End Support SSAG Lawyers
Good Vancouver Calgary high end support SSAG lawyers marshall evidence that supports a spousal support settlement or court order that favours their client. The paying spouse wants support at the lower end of the spousal support advisory guideline ranges for as short a period as possible while the receiving spouse wants just the opposite. The spousal support advisory guidelines “SSAG” have been around for more than a decade and are routinely used to settle or decide spousal support disputes.
Factors Matter Say Vancouver Calgary High End Support SSAG Lawyers
Our top rated* Vancouver high end support SSAG lawyers know that the court must consider a number of factors to decide where in the range of amount and duration of payment the court order should fall. Professor Rollie Thomson has said having children may push support to the higher end of the range as can having one’s career compromised or negated by the relationship.
*(Top Choice Award (2014, 2016, 2017), top rated reviews on Google, Yelp, threebestrated, lawerratingz.com).
New Case Assesses Role In Marriage Of Spouse Explain Vancouver Calgary High End Support SSAG Lawyers
In Halliday v Halliday the Supreme Court justice reviewed the factors and the law on where in the SSAG range support should fall
[61] In support of her position that Ms. Halliday is entitled to spousal support at the high end of the SSAG calculations, she refers to several authorities including:
- a) Gould v. Gould, 2013 BCSC 168 in which Justice Greyell at para. 107 set spousal support at the higher end of the range because of the long term relationship between the parties, who had cohabited in excess of 30 years, as well as the respondent’s injury and resulting disability and her lack of capacity to earn income presently and in the future.
- b) Henderson v. Henderson, 2015 SKQB 307 in which Justice Wilson at para. 85 found it appropriate to award spousal support at the higher end as the wife’s claim was primarily compensatory. In that case, the parties had been married for approximately 27 years and the wife was a stay-at-home mother and homemaker.
- c) Rothschild v. Sardelis, 2015 ONSC 5572, involving a 24 year long marriage between parties who were ages 62 and 56 at trial and where the respondent had a long-standing medical condition. After referring to situations where financial dependency arose from ill health or disability, the court found at paras. 29 and 30:
29 …that the spousal support during these particular years should be at the high end of the SSAG range. With the adjustments noted to her financial statement I am satisfied that spousal support at or near the high end of the SSAG range will satisfy the need Ms. Sardelis has established for spousal support.
30 There are other factors tending to the high end of the spousal support range. The length of cohabitation, namely 24 years, is one such factor. Some financial dependency did arise during cohabitation; in particular Ms. Sardelis had the lower income and the higher medical expenses. In the years following separation Ms. Sardelis’ medical conditions resulted in her working a four day week, with reduced income, and eventually going on Long Term Disability with a further income reduction. She had need and Mr. Rothschild had the ability to assist her.
-
d) (E.E.) v. T. (A.N.), 2012 ABQB 298 where Justice Donald Lee stated:
10 The Courts have wide discretion in awarding spousal support. Entitlement is a fact driven process that relies on the unique facts in each case. S. (M.) v. S. (J.), 2010 ABQB 127 at para. 56. However, Moge at para. 84 found that a long-term marriage results in a presumptive claim to equal standards of living upon dissolution. It connects the parties’ ability to support a reasonable standard of living provided by the “joint venture” of the marriage to the standard of living the parties can expect after separation: Riad v. Riad, 2002 ABCA 254.
…
14 …The important factors in choosing the appropriate amount from the range are as follows:
-
Strength of any compensatory claim;
-
Recipient’s needs;
-
…
-
Needs and ability to pay of the [sic] payor;
-
Work incentives for payor;
-
Property division and debts; and
-
Self-sufficiency incentives (Rogerson and Thomspon, supra).
In that case, the parties had been married for over 20 years. It was a traditional marriage, where the wife was a stay at home mother and the husband worked outside the home and was the main breadwinner. The wife had cancer. Justice Donald Lee determined that an appropriate spousal support award was close to the high end of the SSAG calculations due to the wife’s low job skills and illness.
[62] On the other hand, Mr. Halliday refers to the SSAG, in particular Part 9 – “Using the Ranges” at p. 100 which includes the following statements:
9.4 Needs and Ability to Pay of Payor
…
Even though the without child support formula uses gross incomes to work out the amounts, it is always important to look at the net income consequences of any particular amount of spousal support, especially for the payor. In longer marriages under this formula, where the formula percentages are higher, this is critical, especially where the payor has large mandatory deductions, including any pension deductions, compared to the recipient. These deductions may be a factor in going lower in the range for amount.
(Emphasis added.)
9.5 Work Incentives for Payor
…
Here we are not speaking about employment deductions from the payor’s pay, discussed immediately above. One obvious concern here is the additional out-of-pocket costs of going to work every day, not covered by any employer and not reflected in income or deductions from pay, e.g. clothing, commuting to work, parking, tools, etc. For example, where a payor has substantial commuting expenses in an urban area, this may be a factor for going lower in the range.
[63] To summarize, there are valid reasons submitted by Ms. Halliday for applying the high range, and valid reasons submitted by Mr. Halliday for adopting the lower range. Respecting the items referred to in the SSAG quoted above, Mr. Halliday has considerable costs of commuting not only by ferry from Salt Spring Island to the Lower Mainland but also in commuting on the Lower Mainland. He also pays for other employment costs for which he is not reimbursed. Mr. Halliday also has large mandatory deductions including pension deductions.
[64] From Ms. Halliday’s perspective, this was a long term relationship and Ms. Halliday has been disabled which would tend to an award at the high end of the scale as would Ms. Halliday’s costs for medication and having sacrificed several years to raising their children, albeit with outside help while she was disabled.
[65] Considering the law above, the circumstances of these parties and there being valid factors supporting application of the lower and the higher range of SSAG calculations, I find that spousal support in this case should be assessed at the mid range.
[66] I also find, due primarily to Ms. Halliday having sacrificed years of her career to raising the children and due to her health issues, she is entitled to spousal support on a compensatory basis.
