What are the principles of spousal support in Canada?

Bracklow v. Bracklow, 1999 CanLII 715 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420 summarized the principles of compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support at paragraph 32: Both the mutual obligation model [the basis for non-compensatory support] and the independent, clean break model [the basis for compensatory support] represent important realities and address significant policy concerns and social values. The federal and provincial legislatures, through their respective statutes, have acknowledged both models. Neither theory alone is capable of achieving a just law of spousal support. The importance of the policy objectives served by both models is beyond dispute. It is critical to recognize and encourage the self-sufficiency and independence of each spouse. It is equally vital to recognize that divorced people may move on to other relationships and acquire new obligations which they may not be able to meet if they are obliged to maintain full financial burdens from previous relationships. On the other hand, it is also important to recognize that sometimes the goals of actual independence are impeded by patterns of marital dependence, that too often self-sufficiency at the time of marriage termination is an impossible aspiration, and that marriage is an economic partnership that is built upon a premise (albeit rebuttable) of mutual support. The real question in such cases is whether the state should automatically bear the costs of these realities, or whether the family, including former spouses, should be asked to contribute to the need, means permitting….Parliament and the legislatures have decreed otherwise by requiring courts to consider not only compensatory factors, but the ”needs” and “means” of the parties. It is not a question of either one model or the other. It is rather a matter of applying the relevant factors and striking the balance that best achieves justice in the particular case before the court.

Moge v. Moge, 1992 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813, discusses the equitable sharing of the financial consequences of relationship breakdown, particularly in long term relationships. The economic consequences of a breakdown in a relationship should not be borne by one party alone or disproportionately. The obligation to assist a spouse with the economic consequences of a breakdown in a relationship should be borne by the other spouse and not the state. The court stated the following, at page 870, concerning long term relationships: As marriage should be regarded as a joint endeavour, the longer the relationship endures, the closer the economic union, the greater will be the presumptive claim to equal standards of living upon its dissolution.