What is the relevant consideration for a lump sum of spousal support awarded to a payor who has increased her income significantly after separation?

Alberta, Canada


The following excerpt is from Chalifoux v. Chalifoux, 2006 ABQB 535 (CanLII):

In considering this issue, the starting point is Francis v. Baker, 1999 CanLII 659 (SCC), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 250, where the income of a payor spouse increased dramatically after the parties separated. This case was primarily concerned with the issue of child support, where the current income of the payor- that is to say, the post-separation income of the payor- is the relevant consideration. The issue of spousal support was secondary, but it is important to note that the court made no distinction between post-separation income and income at the time of separation in awarding a lump sum of spousal support to the wife. The husband’s circumstances at the time of the trial were the relevant reference for determining both child and spousal support.

However, most cases that have considered the payor spouse’s post-separation income as the basis for determining spousal support have done so on the basis that the payee spouse contributed to the career advancement of the payor spouse, or because skills or credentials were developed by the payor spouse during cohabitation: see for example Fletcher v. Fletcher, 2003 ABQB 890.

Other cases have rejected the view that post-separation income is necessarily determinative for spousal support calculations. In Dextraze v. Dextraze, 2004 CarswellBC 287, 2004 BCSC 215 at para. 40, the court determined that the fact that a spouse’s ability to pay has increased since the settlement, does not, in itself, constitute a basis for an increase in spousal support. In Rozen v. Rozen (2003), 37 R.F.L. (5th) 205, 2003 BCSC 973, the court also refused to increase a wife’s support on the basis of substantial increases in the husband’s income following their separation because the court considered that the additional income was not related to the breakdown of the marriage or to the sacrifices of the wife during their marriage. Instead, the court found that the increase occurred because of “a re-organization of [the husband’s] accounting firm and additional work being required of him.” (at para. 17) In other words, the court was not satisfied that the wife had made a sufficient contribution to justify sharing in the increased post-separation income.

Other Questions


Is post-separation income determinative for the calculation of spousal support? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the test for retroactive maintenance when a payor falsified their income so that their income was lower than the original payor's? (Alberta, Canada)
When considering retroactive spousal support for the purposes of child support, is the issue of notice, delay and misconduct relevant? (Alberta, Canada)
Can a court impute income under section 19(1)(a) of the Child Support Guidelines where the payor has pursued a deliberate course of conduct for the purpose of evading child support obligations? (Alberta, Canada)
In what circumstances will child support be deducted from income for purposes of calculating child support when a spouse loses a property loss? (Alberta, Canada)
Does a payor have to pay child support where the payor is an entrepreneur trying to pay off a judgment? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the standard of review for an award affecting spousal support? (Alberta, Canada)
How has the court considered the relationship between child support and spousal support? (Alberta, Canada)
What factors will the court consider when awarding spousal support? (Alberta, Canada)
Does remarriage of a divorced spouse entitled to court-ordered support from a former spouse automatically justify or discharge a subsisting order for spousal and child support? (Alberta, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.