Calgary Family Spousal Support lawyers deal with cases involving the amount and duration of support once entitlement is established. Calgary Family Spousal Support lawyers also deal with whether spousal support should be based on contractual, compensatory and non compensatory grounds. Lorne N. MacLean, QC handles high net worth Calgary family law separation and divorce cases as head of our Calgary Family Spousal Support lawyers.
If you have questions concerning spousal support contact one of our Calgary Family Spousal Support lawyers at 1-877-602-9900 today to get a custom tailored explanation for your situation a plan to help you move forward. Our firm handles Calgary high net worth spousal support cases.
Calgary Family Spousal Support Lawyers 1-877-602-9900
Whether you are in a short, medium, or long marriage with or without children the issues of entitlement, quantum (the amount paid monthly) or duration (how long support is paid) will need to be assessed and a strategy created to resolve matters.
Calgary Family Spousal Support Lawyers Like Leading Case
A leading Alberta Court of Appeal decision of Keen v Christian-Keen, 2015 ABCA 314 provides a nice summary of how spousal support works in Alberta:
10 Spousal support, as envisioned in the Divorce Act, is part of a scheme intended to ensure the “fair and equitable distribution of resources to alleviate the economic consequences of marriage or marriage breakdown”: Moge v Moge,1992 CanLII 25 (SCC),  3 SCR 813 at 849. In assessing whether to award support, a trial judge must consider each objective in the Act and the “conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse”: s 15.2.
11 A trial judge may award different categories of spousal support. In this case, the relevant categories are compensatory and non-compensatory support. Compensatory support is meant to recognize the value of non-monetary contributions to a marriage and seeks to alleviate the economic loss of a spouse who has been disadvantaged by his or her role in the marriage, often because of long interruptions in employment to take on parenting or domestic responsibilities. This Court has described the issue as “whether one spouse has gained an advantage in his or her ability to earn income or acquire assets that should be shared, for at least some period of time”: Corbeil v Corbeil, 2001 ABCA 220 (CanLII), 286 AR 330 at para 45. Where compensatory support is appropriate, a subsequent re-partnering or remarriage does not necessarily disentitle the spouse to that compensatory support. The disadvantages arising from the marriage are not overcome until the disadvantaged spouse returns to work and progresses, or upgrades his or her training: see Heimbecker v Heimbecker, 2007 ABQB 645 (CanLII) at para 54.
12 Non-compensatory support is intended to alleviate economic hardship arising from the breakdown of the marriage. The focus here is not on compensation for what the spouses have contributed to or gained from the marriage but rather on post-marital need: Moge at p 878; Bennett v Bennett, 2005 ABQB 984 (CanLII) at paras 19-20.
13 The trial judge here appreciated and applied all of these principles. After reviewing the objectives of the Act and the circumstances of the spouses, the trial judge determined that the respondent was entitled to both compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support at the time of marriage breakdown, and properly outlined the difference between the two. She then proceeded to make an award of compensatory support, consisting of both retroactive and ongoing support, as she was entitled to do.
14 The appellant argues that the award of retroactive support was sufficient to satisfy the need for compensation, and that the trial judge’s award of ongoing support was intended to be non-compensatory. He says the ongoing support award was made in error, as there was no evidence before the trial judge as to the respondent’s ongoing need for non-compensatory support. It is clear from the reasons of the trial judge that this is not an accurate characterization of the award made. Although the trial judge concluded that the respondent was entitled to both compensatory and non-compensatory support, both aspects of her award were intended to be compensatory only. She was clearly of the view that the respondent’s medical condition might merit an additional award for non-compensatory support but did not consider that she had sufficient information to make a final determination on the matter. The trial judge noted in her reasons that, if the respondent wished to pursue her claim for non-compensatory support, additional medical evidence would have been necessary. There is no reviewable error in these conclusions.
Calgary Family Spousal Support Lawyers Can Help You
Call us immediately at 403-44-5503 if you have a spousal support question, as delay compromises your claim.