The best ultra high net worth support lawyers understand that “the rich are not like the rest of us” as one BC Supreme Court justice noted. MacLean Law has set some of the highest awards for spousal support at $100,000 monthly and $21,000 a month for a single child as well as the highest support received by a man earning $400,000 a year of $30,000 a month. These cases are regularly used by BC Courts and family lawyers to help guide spousal support results and settlements.
West Vancouver Best Ultra High Net Worth Support Lawyers Tel: 604 602 9000
$200,000 a Month Spousal Support: When “Need” Meets Extraordinary Wealth
What happens when a spouse seeks $400,000 per month in spousal support, and the other spouse argues that the claim is unnecessary because the recipient is already deemed to receive approximately $90 million in capital? Here is what Armaghan Aliabadi our Best Ultra High Net Worth Support Lawyers say on the point.
That was one of the questions before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Bloomberg v. Burnett, 2026 ONSC 3863. The decision provides a look at the challenges courts face when traditional support frameworks meet extraordinary wealth.
The case involved a fifteen-year marriage, four children, a highly profitable investment fund business valued at approximately $200 million, and real estate holdings worth tens of millions of dollars.
The Court ultimately ordered:
- $200,000 per month in interim spousal support and
- $75,000 per month in child support, together with a separate $27,000 monthly contribution toward nanny and assistant salaries.
But the dollar amounts are only part of the story. The decision provides five important lessons for ultra-high-net-worth (“UHNW”) family law disputes.
The Background: A $200 Million Business and a $90 Million Equalization Payment
The parties began dating in 2006 and married in 2009. They had four children, then aged 8, 10, 12 and 14. The husband had a sophisticated education and extensive experience in asset management before founding BloombergSen Inc. (“BSI”), a highly profitable fund enterprise.
The wife had also obtained degrees from the University of Pennsylvania and Wharton but stopped working outside the home once they had their children. The Court accepted that she became the primary caregiver and made significant contributions to the family while the husband devoted substantial time to developing BSI.
By the time of separation, BSI had grown into an approximately $200 million asset. The parties also had an $11 million matrimonial home, $16 million in vacant land and a $30 million Muskoka cottage.
The husband proposed a tax-efficient “butterfly transaction” that, according to his valuations, would leave the wife with approximately $90 million. The wife had not rejected the proposal outright but had not agreed to it either.
With that, the Court was asked to determine five issues which our Best Ultra High Net Worth Support Lawyers will go through in detail.
Issue #1: Was the Support Motion Premature Because of the $90 Million Equalization? Tel: 604 602 9000
The husband argued that the wife should not receive interim support because she was likely to receive approximately $90 million from the eventual division of BSI.
The Court disagreed.
Justice Diamond acknowledged that the eventual equalization payment would be highly relevant to the ultimate support analysis. However, this was an interim proceeding, and the parties had not yet completed the extensive disclosure, questioning, expert evidence and valuation work necessary to determine their final financial positions.
Importantly, the Court also found that it had no jurisdiction to force the parties into the proposed butterfly transaction. Until the capital was actually divided, the wife could not simply be treated as though she already possessed the $90 million.
UHNW lesson: Wealth on paper is not necessarily the same thing as accessible wealth. The timing, liquidity and certainty of a future capital payment can matter enormously when interim support is being determined.
Issue #2: Was the Wife Entitled to Interim Spousal Support?
The Court answered yes.
The wife had been out of the workforce for approximately 15 years. The Court found that she had put her career on hold while taking on significant domestic and parenting responsibilities, thereby allowing the husband to devote himself to growing BSI.
The Court therefore found a prima facie case for entitlement based on both the economic consequences of the marriage and the wife’s role in supporting the family’s success.
One particularly important point was the Court’s treatment of the $4.3 million the husband had already advanced to the wife following separation. The Court noted that $3 million had expressly been advanced “on account of capital.” It rejected the proposition that the wife’s need for support should simply be satisfied by consuming her own capital assets.
UHNW lesson: A recipient’s substantial capital position does not automatically eliminate spousal support. Courts may distinguish between capital intended to represent a spouse’s property entitlement and income intended to meet ongoing support needs.
Issue #3: How Much Spousal Support? Tel: 604 602 9000
This is where the case becomes particularly interesting.
The wife sought $400,000 per month. The husband argued that her budget was exaggerated and did not accurately reflect the family’s historical lifestyle.
The Court emphasized that the SSAGs are not binding and that, where income exceeds the $350,000 ceiling, the formulas are no longer presumptive. Instead, the Court must conduct an individualized, fact-specific analysis.
The Court also scrutinized the wife’s budget. Certain claimed monthly expenses included more than $7,000 for gardening, approximately $5,500 for audio-visual maintenance, more than $12,500 for property maintenance and concierge services, more than $24,000 for household supplies and more than $11,000 for a personal chef.
Justice Diamond concluded that some expenses appeared inflated and did not necessarily reflect the parties’ historical marital lifestyle.
Nevertheless, the Court did not reject the concept of maintaining an affluent lifestyle simply because the requested amount was extraordinary.
Vancouver Best Ultra High Net Worth Support Lawyers Tel: 604 602 9000
The result was $200,000 per month in interim spousal support, commencing August 1, 2026, in addition to the wife’s BSI salary which was $200,000/year.
UHNW lesson: At extraordinary incomes, support is not simply a mathematical exercise. The court must examine the actual marital lifestyle, the reliability of the budget, the recipient’s needs, the payor’s ability to pay and the unique circumstances of the family.
Issue #4: How Much Child Support? Tel: 604 602 9000
The Court similarly rejected a straightforward application of the Child Support Guidelines.
The husband was already agreeing to pay 100% of agreed section 7 expenses, including private school tuition, summer camps and extracurricular activities.
Given the parties’ extraordinary financial circumstances and the children’s shared parenting arrangement, the Court found that the Guidelines alone were insufficient. Instead, it considered the children’s actual and recurring needs.
The wife’s proposed children’s budget included approximately $34,000 per month for five nannies and two assistants, $25,000 for clothing, approximately $66,000 for travel with the children and more than $28,000 for children’s bar and bat mitzvah expenses.
The Court found portions of the budget excessive and ordered $75,000 per month in child support, together with a separate $27,000 per month toward nanny and assistant salaries.
South Surrey Best Ultra High Net Worth Support Lawyers
UHNW lesson: Extraordinary wealth does not mean every claimed expense becomes a child’s “need.” Even in a very wealthy family, courts will scrutinize whether proposed expenses fall within a reasonable range.
Issue #5: Should Support Be Retroactive? Tel: 604 602 9000
The Court declined to make a retroactive support order at this stage.
Although retroactive support could ultimately be payable, the Court considered the proceeding too early to conduct the necessary analysis. It noted that the wife had already received $4.3 million and continued to have access to significant funds. The issue was therefore left for the trial judge.
Why Bloomberg Matters to UHNW Family Law in British Columbia
Although Bloomberg v. Burnett is an Ontario decision, its underlying issues are highly relevant to UHNW family law disputes in British Columbia.
UHNW families in British Columbia face many of the same challenges: privately held businesses, investment structures, substantial capital assets, complex income streams, sophisticated tax planning, private schools, household employees and significant differences between reported income and actual economic resources.
Victoria Best Ultra High Net Worth Support Lawyers Tel: 604 602 9000
The case is particularly instructive because it demonstrates that wealth does not make traditional family-law questions disappear, it makes them more complicated.
For UHNW clients, the lesson is clear: the larger the balance sheet, the less likely it is that family-law disputes can be resolved by applying a simple formula. They require careful analysis of the source, structure, liquidity and purpose of wealth, and increasingly sophisticated financial and valuation evidence.
Contact Our Best Ultra High Net Worth Support Lawyers Tel: 604 602 9000
Bloomberg is therefore more than a case about a $200,000 monthly support award. It is a window into the increasingly complex world of family law at the highest levels of wealth.
MacLean Law’s Best Ultra High Net Worth Support Lawyers are here to help so contact us promptly before your spouse does.
