7,366
edits
Difference between revisions of "Basic Principles of Spousal Support"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Basic Principles of Spousal Support (view source)
Revision as of 22:17, 16 July 2019
, 22:17, 16 July 2019→Spousal support, fault and misconduct
Nate Russell (talk | contribs) |
Nate Russell (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
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 | <blockquote>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.</blockquote> | ||
The ''[[Family Law Act]]'' takes a slightly different approach. Section 166 says this: | The ''[[Family Law Act]]'' takes a slightly different approach. Section 166 says this: | ||
| Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
<blockquote><blockquote><tt>(b) affects the ability to provide spousal support.</tt></blockquote></blockquote> | <blockquote><blockquote><tt>(b) affects the ability to provide spousal support.</tt></blockquote></blockquote> | ||
In other words, under the ''Family Law Act'', the court cannot consider misconduct generally (the same as under the ''Divorce Act''), but the court can look at the effects of the parties' behaviour on whether the recipient is doing the things that need to be done to become economically self-sufficient or whether the payor | In other words, under the ''Family Law Act'', the court cannot consider misconduct generally (the same as under the ''Divorce Act''), but the court can look at the effects of the parties' behaviour on whether the recipient is doing the things that need to be done to become economically self-sufficient or whether the conduct has undermined the payor's ability to pay support. | ||
===Securing a spousal support obligation=== | ===Securing a spousal support obligation=== | ||