Record UHNW Property Award and Support Lawyers are rare. Lorne MacLean KC of MacLean Law’s renowned UHNW family law legal team is proud to announce the expansion of our family office in Bankers Hall in downtown Calgary. We are proud to announce the addition of Catherine Fox KC to lead and mentor a rapidly growing team of intermediate family lawyers who have a passion to resolve matters for Albertan family law clients. MacLean Law has won a number of awards such as the Canadian Family Law Firm of the Year in 2024 and being the only family law firm selected a a top 5 finalist for Canada’s Boutique Law Firm of The Year in 2026. Lawyers at our firm have appeared twice in the SCC and set some of the highest spousal, child and family property division awards in Canada.
A Large Property Award Does Not Automatically End Spousal Support
MacLean Law’s Record UHNW Property Award and Support Lawyers know that a substantial property entitlement does not, by itself, eliminate a spouse’s entitlement to support. The central question remains whether the marriage created continuing economic disadvantage, need, or hardship that property division has not fully addressed.
Calgary Record UHNW Property and Support Lawyers
Record UHNW Property Award and Support Lawyers Explain this key principle is reflected in the statutory objectives of spousal support. Courts must consider relationship-based economic advantages and disadvantages, the financial consequences of childcare, economic hardship arising from separation, and reasonable self-sufficiency.
They must also assess each spouse’s means, needs, circumstances, earning capacity, and the length and functions of the relationship. (Family Law Act, ss. 160–162) (Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25, [ss. 160–162]); (Divorce Act, s. 15.2(4), (6)) (Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), [s. 15.2(4), (6)]).
J.L.H. v. R.S.W.: Equal Property Division Was Not the End of the Analysis
Out Calgary Record UHNW Property Award and Support LawyersIn J.L.H. v. R.S.W., the parties had been together for approximately 25 years. R.S.W. was a high-income financial-services professional, while J.L.H., a trained lawyer, spent much of the marriage outside the workforce caring for the home and the parties’ children. The parties divided a substantial employment-related gain equally, with each receiving approximately $2.774 million. (J.L.H. v R.S.W., 2017 ABCA 98 (CanLII), [2]–[4]).
Despite that significant division of property, J.L.H. claimed spousal support. The trial judge found that she was not entitled to compensatory support but was entitled to need-based support. On appeal, the Court considered whether the equal division of substantial matrimonial assets eliminated her compensatory claim. (J.L.H. v R.S.W., [10], [17]–[20]).
The Court of Appeal concluded that it did not. J.L.H.’s prolonged absence from employment had left her with outdated qualifications and reduced economic competitiveness. Her domestic and parenting role had created a continuing disadvantage that the property division did not necessarily remedy. (J.L.H. v R.S.W., [19]–[20]).
The Court explained that property division could form only the beginning of the support analysis. Property and support serve different functions: property division allocates assets and debt, while support addresses the economic consequences of the relationship and its breakdown. The Court also recognized that assets received through equalization must be considered when assessing means and needs, but they do not automatically extinguish an otherwise valid support claim. (J.L.H. v R.S.W., [18]).
Our Record UHNW Property Award and Support Lawyers point out that the parties’ post-separation spending also mattered. J.L.H.’s dissipation of assets affected the assessment of her needs and means, but it did not erase her residual compensatory entitlement. Similarly, R.S.W.’s spending could not artificially reduce his ability to pay, particularly because he continued to earn significant income. (J.L.H. v R.S.W., [20], [25]–[26]).
The Court ultimately varied the support order and fixed future support at $9,000 per month on an interim basis, pending disclosure and possible review. (J.L.H. v R.S.W., [29]).
MacLean Law’s Devathasan: Over $20 Million to Wife of Family Property Plus Exceptional Monthly Support!
Our Record UHNW Property Award and Support Lawyers established the same principles forcefully appeared with Lorne MacLean KC’s win in Devathasan v. Devathasan. The parties’ estimated worldwide assets were approximately $38 million to $41.4 million. Ms. Devathasan had stopped working in 2002 to care for the children and had no Canadian employment history. The court found that retraining would be required before she could realistically pursue Canadian employment. (Devathasan v Devathasan, 2019 BCSC 661 (CanLII), [3], [20], [37], [290]).
The parties agreed that Ms. Devathasan would receive the North American properties while Dr. Devathasan would receive the Asian properties, subject to an equalizing payment. Even after that significant property allocation, the court found that Ms. Devathasan had a strong compensatory and non-compensatory entitlement to spousal support. The long relationship had kept her out of the workforce, limited her earning capacity, and enabled Dr. Devathasan to focus on his lucrative medical practice. (Devathasan v Devathasan, [39], [342]–[347]).
The result was a particularly substantial monthly award: $100,000 per month from separation through December 2019. The court relied on Ms. Devathasan’s expenses, the established marital lifestyle, Dr. Devathasan’s spending, and the parties’ continuing disparity in means. (Devathasan v Devathasan, [356]–[369]).
The monthly amount was reduced to $70,000 beginning in January 2020 through August 2024 because the property division would reduce Ms. Devathasan’s ownership and debt-related expenses. However, her strong compensatory entitlement continued. (Devathasan v Devathasan, [371]–[376]).
The court also ordered $1,185,344 in past spousal support and $4,313,000 in lump-sum future spousal support through August 2024. Ms. Devathasan retained liberty to apply for support beginning in October 2024. (Devathasan v Devathasan, [paras. 381–382, 393(f)–(h)]).
We forcefully persuaded the court to accept a large tens of million property entitlement should not displace tens of thousands a month in spousal support. Instead, property division and support operated together. The property allocation addressed ownership and debt, while support addressed the continuing economic consequences of a lengthy relationship and Ms. Devathasan’s absence from the workforce.
If you have a bet the bank ultra high net worth, Calgary or Vancouver family law spousal support, child support, and property division case, perhaps MacLean’s is right for you?
