Difference between revisions of "Spousal Support"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
7 bytes added ,  22:47, 18 May 2013
Line 15: Line 15:
No matter if one spouse was working during the relationship or both worked, the fact is that during the relationship there was only one mortgage payment to make, only one hydro bill and only one cable <span class="noglossary">bill</span>. After the relationship ends, there are two rent payments, two hydro bills and two sets of groceries to buy, all of which must be paid out of the same pool of income that supported the family before separation.
No matter if one spouse was working during the relationship or both worked, the fact is that during the relationship there was only one mortgage payment to make, only one hydro bill and only one cable <span class="noglossary">bill</span>. After the relationship ends, there are two rent payments, two hydro bills and two sets of groceries to buy, all of which must be paid out of the same pool of income that supported the family before separation.


To be clear, however, a spousal relationship, whether married or unmarried, does not in itself establish a right to life-long support. When a spousal relationship ends, each party needs to become financially independent and self-sufficient as soon as possible. As the judge said in the 1997 Supreme Court case of ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1f4h7 Dumais-Koski v. Koski]'', 1997 CanLII 3816 (BCSC) "marriage is not a legal institution created for the redistribution of wealth." Or, as the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench put it in the 2005 case of ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1pvt2 V.S. v. A.K.]'', 2005 ABQB 754:
To be clear, however, the fact of being in a spousal relationship, whether married or unmarried, does establish a right to life-long support. When a spousal relationship ends, each party needs to become financially independent and self-sufficient as soon as possible. As the judge said in the 1997 Supreme Court case of ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1f4h7 Dumais-Koski v. Koski]'', 1997 CanLII 3816 (BCSC) "marriage is not a legal institution created for the redistribution of wealth." Or, as the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench put it in the 2005 case of ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1pvt2 V.S. v. A.K.]'', 2005 ABQB 754:


<blockquote>"A person does not acquire a lifetime pension as a result of marriage. Likewise, marriage is not an insurance policy."</blockquote>
<blockquote>"A person does not acquire a lifetime pension as a result of marriage. Likewise, marriage is not an insurance policy."</blockquote>

Navigation menu