BACKGROUND
The Respondent and Appellant were in a common law relationship. Upon separation, the Respondent sought spousal support under the Family Law Act (FLA). The trial judge ruled that the parties were in fact spouses under section 29 of the FLA and award non-compensatory spousal support to the Respondent. Spousal support was calculated using the Appellant’s actual income rather than capping her income at the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) ceiling of $350,000.
In this matter, the Appellant is challenging the amount of spousal support awarded.
THE LAW
Under section 29 of the FLA, a “spouse” includes unmarried partners who have cohabited continuously for not less than three years or who are in a relationship of some permanence if they are the parents of a child.
The SSAG provide ranges for spousal support amounts based on the payor’s income and relationship factors. While non-binding, courts routinely use them to guide support awards. The SSAG ceiling of $350,000 is a soft limit on the payor’s income for guideline purposes. However, courts maintain the discretion to use actual income above this limit where justified.
Courts must undertake an individualized, and fact-specific analysis when determining income for SSAG purposes. The court in Halliwell v Halliwell, 2017 ONCA 349, confirmed that this analysis requires consideration of relevant financial factors, including assessing both parties’ financial circumstances, budgets, and standard of living to ensure fair outcomes. Consideration of large capital transfers, like equalization payments, forms part of this analysis where relevant.
Courts will only impute income where there is sufficient evidence to justify doing so.
ANALYSIS
Assessment of the Appellant’s Income
The Appellant argued that the trial judge erred by using her actual income to calculate support.
The court found that the trial judge properly conducted a fact-specific analysis considering both the parties’ budgets, needs, and standard of living. As such, using the Appellant’s full income was justified to meet the Respondent’s needs, specifically because his budget fell short even when using the high-end SSAG range.
Imputation of Income to the Respondent
The Appellant claimed that the Respondent should have an imputed income of $70,000, rather than $50,000.
The trial judge found no evidentiary basis to impute the Respondent’s income to more than $50,000 and the Court of Appeal upheld this decision.
CONCLUSION
The appeal was dismissed.