BACKGROUND
The Appellant father, R.L. and the Respondent mother, M.F. married on February 18, 2006, and separated on February 24, 2020. The father worked as a financial advisor, and the mother worked 3 days per week (60% basis) as a respirologist. Both parties were high income earners. The mother had always been the primary caregiver of the parties’ two daughters. At trial, the mother’s income was imputed to $550,000.
In this case, the father appealed the October 25th, 2023, judgment of Justice Kurz which ordered him to pay the mother $20,000 in monthly spousal support for a further 9.5 years. Prior to trial, based on his 2021 income of $2,032,000, the father agreed to pay $24,661 in monthly child support, special and extraordinary expenses of the children of $6,627 per month, and child support arrears in the amount of $79,560.
Justice Kurz’s May 12th, 2024, endorsement additionally ordered the father to pay an equalization payment in the sum of $474,744.36.
ISSUES
- Did the application judge err in ordering that the respondent had any entitlement to spousal support in the face of his incomeimputation finding, which ought to have wholly mitigated entitlement on any basis?
ANALYSIS
Standard of Review
As this case is an appeal, the appellant (the father in this case) seeks to overturn the ruling of a lower-level court. In order to succeed in overturning a decision, the father was required to prove that the trial judge made a material error in fact or in law or both. The court cited Ballanger v Ballanger 2020 ONCA 616 and explained that this was a very high standard which needed to be met. As such, it cannot simply be a reweighing of evidence to reach a different outcome.
The Court of Appeal stated that the father did not meet his burden of proof because he did not uncover a legal error in the trial judge’s reasoning. Instead, the court found the father’s submissions were a “thinly veiled request” for the court to revisit the trial judge’s findings.
Spousal Support
The father argued that the judge made an error in finding that the mother was entitled to spousal support. Specifically, he argued that the mother’s spousal support claim should not include a compensatory element as she did not suffer an economic loss from the roles assumed in the relationship.
The court cited s. 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act to explain that the legislative objectives of spousal support are meant to not only include economic “disadvantage” in the courts consideration, but also economic “advantage”.
The case law explains that when considering an award of spousal support, all the factors listed in the Divorce Act must be contemplated. No one factor is more important than the other.
The mother’s role in the marriage reflected the parties’ joint decision that she would be responsible for most of the home and childcare responsibilities while working part time, and the father would be able to focus on growing his career. Section 15.2(6)(a) and (b) of the Divorce Act outline that compensatory entitlement may arise where one spouse has conferred economic advantages on the other notwithstanding the absence of economic disadvantage. This means that even though the mother is highly trained and capable of reentering the work force, it does not automatically follow that she is not entitled to spousal support.
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal decided that the trial judge did not make an error in determining that the mother had both compensatory and non-compensatory entitlement to spousal support. The fact that the mother worked outside the home during the marriage and was independently successful did not take away from the fact that she assumed the “lion’s share” of the home and child responsibilities.