">
Can a spouse be entitled to compensatory spousal support when both parties are high-income earners, and the claimant has not suffered an economic disadvantage from the breakdown of the marriage? In a recent case, the husband argued that the support recipient should not have a compensatory support claim as there was no economic loss arising from their relationship, and that the recipient could support herself post-marriage.
However, compensatory support accounts for both economic losses and economic advantages and is not limited to cases in which a spouse leaves a marriage with diminished income-earning capacity. Instead, courts emphasize that the economic and marital benefits accrued during the marriage should be shared equitably.
Husband Alleges Wife Did Not Suffer an Economic Loss
R.L. v. M.F. involved a 14-year marriage in which both spouses were high-income earners. The husband had agreed to pay $24,661 per month in child support, plus $6,627 per month for child-related special/extraordinary expenses. At trial, the judge ordered the husband to pay $20,000 per month in spousal support for an additional 9.5 years. The husband appealed and challenged the spousal support award. The appellant husband questioned how the respondent wife could have a claim for compensatory support when the court found she had not suffered an economic loss arising from the roles she assumed during their relationship.
Section 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act sets out the objectives of a spousal support order, which include:
- Recognizing any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown.
- Apportioning between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage.
- Relieving any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage.
- Promoting the economic self-sufficiency of the spouses.
The Court of Appeal explained that these recognize not only economic disadvantage, but also economic advantages. In Bracklow v. Bracklow, the Supreme Court of Canada explained that no objective is paramount and that all need to be considered to “reflect the diverse dynamics of the many unique marital relationships”. Additionally, in Miglin v. Miglin, the Court emphasized that support encompasses both compensatory and non-compensatory, or needs-based, grounds. Here, the Court of Appeal pointed out that the appellant focused only on alleged errors in assessing the respondent’s need, “despite the fact that the respondent’s strongest entitlement to support was compensatory to “recognize any economic advantages” arising from the marriage” and to compensate her “for her partnership role during a marriage of nearly 14 years, and to give her a continued share of the fruits of that partnership”.
Divorce Act Outlines the Objectives of Spousal Support
The Court of Appeal found that the appellant’s arguments did not recognize the difference between the different bases for support and did not consider all of the possible bases for the respondent’s entitlement to support. This was an error. Reviewing the different bases, the Court explained that non-compensatory support focuses on the spouse’s needs and their respective means. In contrast, compensatory support locates entitlement as “compensation for the economic disadvantages to the recipient spouse or the economic advantages conferred on the payor spouse as a result of the roles assumed by the parties during their marriage”. And any approach that considers only needs and ignores the possibility of compensatory support is misguided.
The Court explained that a claim for compensatory support is not precluded when the claimant spouse has not suffered career setbacks. Since section 15.2(6) of the Act confirms that compensatory entitlement can result from parties’ roles during the marriage, and the fact that one spouse can confer economic advantage on the other.
Cases previously indicated that this can arise when one spouse assumes more of the family’s household or child-rearing responsibilities. Looking at the parties’ relationship, they agreed that the respondent would work part-time and assume a greater share of the home and childcare responsibilities, which enabled the appellant to pursue a successful career. As the judge put it, the respondent’s career was secondary to her role as a mother and spouse, and secondary to the appellant’s own career. The mere fact that the respondent was able to earn a good income after separation did not disentitle her to support. Instead, courts can recognize the economic merger that occurs over the length of a marriage.
Compensatory Support Claims Also Address Economic Advantages
The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines explains how “spouses merge their economic and non-economic lives more deeply, with each spouse making countless decisions to mould his or her skills, behaviour and finances around those of the other spouse”. Courts recognize that this creates a joint standard of living that needs to be considered when assessing support claims. Moge v. Moge recognized that marriage generates financial benefits and that, upon divorce, the spouses may be entitled to share them.
Likewise, as the parties’ economic union deepens over the course of a marriage, “the greater will be the presumptive claim to equal standards of living upon its dissolution”. For example, in Allaire v. Allaire, even though the recipient earned a good income, the Court remarked that “self-sufficiency” must be viewed in the context of the standard of living the parties enjoyed during their marriage. And that it was appropriate to consider whether the payor could assist the recipient “to live a lifestyle closer to what they shared as a couple”.
In applying those principles, the Court of Appeal found that there was no error in the trial judge’s determination that the respondent was entitled to compensatory support. The trial judge first considered whether there was any entitlement to support and examined the income disparity between the spouses. The judge also considered the relevant sections of the Divorce Act and concluded that the respondent’s decision to work part-time assisted the appellant’s career and enabled his success. The trial judge concluded that the absence of ongoing career or financial disadvantage to the respondent did not prevent a finding that she had “a moderate compensatory entitlement to spousal support” as well as entitlement to non-compensatory support due to the length of their marriage and the resulting financial interdependence that arose. The Court of Appeal agreed that this conclusion was supported by underlying spousal support principles.
Non-Compensatory Entitlement Considers the Standard of Living During the Marriage
The judge’s analysis also recognized that in the course of a longer marriage, the claimant can have a support entitlement from disadvantage arising from the marriage breakdown by losing the standard of living and lifestyle that was enjoyed during the marriage. The Court of Appeal agreed with this analysis, noting that marriage is an economic union and that its consequences may include both economic disadvantages and benefits. In this instance, the respondent had a non-compensatory support claim and was entitled to share in the appellant’s success that was enabled by her assuming childcare responsibilities.
Furthermore, the Court found that this entitlement was not diminished by the fact that the respondent was capable of returning to the workforce and earning investment income from her share of the property division.
Johnson Miller Family Lawyers: Providing Top-Tier Spousal Support Advice in Windsor-Essex County
Spousal support disputes can be complex, particularly when questions arise about compensatory entitlement, income disparities, and the economic roles spouses assumed during the marriage. Even where both spouses are high-income earners, courts may still award compensatory support to recognize the economic advantages created during the relationship and the partnership that contributed to one spouse’s success.
If you are navigating separation or divorce and have questions about spousal support entitlement, contact Johnson Miller Family Lawyers. Our team of family and divorce lawyers advise clients on all aspects of spousal support disputes and calculations, helping clients understand their rights and obligations while working toward fair and practical outcomes. To schedule a confidential consultation on your family law matter in Windsor-Essex County, please contact us online or call 519-973-1500.
