1,399
edits
Difference between revisions of "Basic Principles of Spousal Support"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Basic Principles of Spousal Support (view source)
Revision as of 19:47, 26 June 2019
, 19:47, 26 June 2019→Spousal support, fault and misconduct
| Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
<blockquote><tt>In making an order [for spousal support] the court shall not take into consideration any misconduct of a spouse in relation to the marriage.</tt></blockquote> | <blockquote><tt>In making an order [for spousal support] the court shall not take into consideration any misconduct of a spouse in relation to the marriage.</tt></blockquote> | ||
The Supreme Court of Canada, in a 2006 ''[[Divorce Act]]'' case called ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1nmrd Leskun v. Leskun]'', [2006] SCC 25 confirmed that the misconduct of the spouses must not be taken into consideration in making a decision about whether spousal support should be paid following the end of their marriage. But even in ''Leskun'', the court distinguished between ''misconduct itself'' and the ''effects of misconduct'' on the parties after separation: | The Supreme Court of Canada, in a 2006 ''[[Divorce Act]]'' case called ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1nmrd Leskun v. Leskun]'', [2006] SCC 25, confirmed that the misconduct of the spouses must not be taken into consideration in making a decision about whether spousal support should be paid following the end of their marriage. But even in ''Leskun'', the court distinguished between ''misconduct itself'' and the ''effects of misconduct'' on the parties after separation: | ||
<blockquote><tt>21.There is, of course, a distinction between the emotional consequences of misconduct and the misconduct itself. The consequences are not rendered irrelevant because of their genesis in the other spouse’s misconduct. If, for example, spousal abuse triggered a depression so serious as to make a claimant spouse unemployable, the consequences of the misconduct would be highly relevant (as here) to the factors which must be considered in determining the right to support, its duration and its amount. The policy of the [''Divorce Act''] however, is to focus on the consequences of the spousal misconduct not the attribution of fault.</tt></blockquote> | <blockquote><tt>21.There is, of course, a distinction between the emotional consequences of misconduct and the misconduct itself. The consequences are not rendered irrelevant because of their genesis in the other spouse’s misconduct. If, for example, spousal abuse triggered a depression so serious as to make a claimant spouse unemployable, the consequences of the misconduct would be highly relevant (as here) to the factors which must be considered in determining the right to support, its duration and its amount. The policy of the [''Divorce Act''] however, is to focus on the consequences of the spousal misconduct not the attribution of fault.</tt></blockquote> | ||