Lying low may not be the best course of action when it comes to temporary spousal support claims

Article content material

Spousal help is without doubt one of the most discretionary areas of household legislation. The problem can turn into much more complicated when a partner claims retroactive help stretching again a decade. 

Article content material

It is not uncommon in a court docket continuing to ask that spousal help be paid from the date of separation ahead. As it may be a number of years after a court docket continuing begins and earlier than a trial, the courts have the jurisdiction to make orders for short-term spousal help, that are often in place till a remaining settlement or a trial.  

Article content material

If a movement for a short lived order is just not introduced by the claimant partner, the standard recommendation household given to payor purchasers is to lie low. The recipient has the onus to show entitlement to spousal help, and the longer it’s earlier than the declare for spousal help is introduced ahead, the much less possible it’s that spousal help might be ordered.  

However a 2021 case from the British Columbia Court docket of Enchantment has made household attorneys suppose twice about their regular recommendation. 

Article content material

In Legge v Legge, the events lived collectively for 8.5 years and had one daughter over whom there was extremely conflictual litigation. In a 2010 provincial court docket continuing, the spouse claimed each youngster help and spousal help, however didn’t pursue her declare for spousal help. After a number of years of litigation, the parenting points have been resolved, and the daughter lived primarily with the mom. The court docket motion went no additional.  

In 2020, the husband, who was nonetheless residing within the events’ house with the daughter who had moved to stay with him, began proceedings within the B.C. Supreme Court docket. He requested the court docket to cope with property, youngster help and a divorce. The spouse requested for a lump sum for spousal help of greater than $100,000. 

Article content material

The spouse justified her delay in in search of spousal help due to their prolonged parenting litigation and her restricted authorized sources. Her declare was based mostly on the precedence given to the husband’s work over her college schooling and her position throughout marriage because the daughter’s main caregiver. As effectively, the daughter lived with the mom for quite a few years after the separation. The husband’s annual revenue ranged from about $94,000 to $125,000, whereas the spouse’s was between about $3,300 and $32,000.  

The trial choose held that the spouse was entitled to spousal help, each compensatory (based mostly on their roles in the course of the relationship) and non-compensatory (her wants), however there was no affordable excuse for her 10-year delay in making a declare.

Article content material

The trial choose thought-about her wants, the payor’s conduct, the explanations for delay and the hardship to the payor, together with that an order for retroactive help stretching again a few years makes monetary planning troublesome, and should impose monetary hardship on the payor. As well as, he thought-about the necessity for the claimant partner to pursue her declare inside an affordable time.

In the end, the choose discovered that awarding retroactive spousal help a decade after the connection ended would really be a redistribution of the household’s property.  

Whereas the B.C. Court docket of Enchantment acknowledged the numerous deference appellate courts are obliged to provide trial judges on the discretionary problem of help, it, nonetheless, put aside the trial choose’s determination. 

Article content material

The Court docket of Enchantment held that if the partner established a “clear entitlement” to help, skilled financial hardship after separation, and was nonetheless deprived at trial, “it might be uncommon for a court docket to make no award for spousal help the place monetary sources allow, however the delay. It’s because a denial of spousal help wouldn’t meet the statutory aims.” 

In making this discovering, the court docket relied on the Supreme Court docket’s determination in Michel v Graydon, saying that “ladies will typically face monetary, occupational, temporal, and emotional disadvantages … entry to justice in household legislation is just not all the time attainable because of the excessive prices of litigation. On this bigger social context, ladies who receive custody (because the spouse did in Legge) are sometimes badly positioned to guage their co-parent’s monetary state of affairs and to take motion towards it.” 

Article content material

The Court docket of Enchantment discovered that the trial choose had overemphasized the spouse’s delay and underemphasized the circumstances that gave rise to the spouse’s declare. As well as, the trial choose regarded on the spouse’s $107,000 declare for retroactive spousal help as an “all or nothing” declare, when a extra “holistic” and “versatile” view of the matter ought to have been utilized.  

The Court docket of Enchantment acknowledged the husband’s sources have been considerably restricted and that ordering the whole thing of the quantity requested by the spouse would place a hardship on him, particularly given the decade-long delay. As there was a restricted quantity of household property out there for division, the court docket opted to order the husband to make a lump sum fee of $27,000 to the spouse for retroactive help. 

This relationship lasted solely 8.5 years. The spousal help order — made a decade after separation — offers new that means to the phrase “a diamond is ceaselessly.” 

Laurie Pawlitza is a senior companion within the household legislation group at Torkin Manes LLP in Toronto. [email protected]