British Columbia Family Law Blog

For example, in Rice v. Rice, 1995 CarswellBC 962, 13 B.C.L.R. (3d) 350, 17 R.F.L. (4th) 328 (B.C.S.C.) the standards of living were equalized. After a 22 year marriage, the husband was earning $180,000 annually and the wife was earning $50,000. The wife also had significant investment income and child support. The Court awarded the wife spousal support of $2,000 monthly for 3 years and $1,000 monthly until the husband's 60th birthday to enable her to enjoy a standard of living similar to that of the husband. The family assets were divided equally.

Similarly, in Weir v. Weir, 2000 CarswellBC 1892, 2000 BCSC 1391, 80 B.C.L.R. (3d) 342, 11 R.F.L. (5th) 223, [2000] B.C.J. No. 1900 (B.C.S.C.) the court determined that the former spouses should have equal standards of living despite the fact that the wife had worked throughout the marriage. In that case, the husband and wife separated after a 21 year marriage during which the wife worked full-time and was the primary caregiver to the parties' children, contributing equally to and making sacrifices for the family's long term financial goals. The Court noted that despite the significant asset base accumulated during the marriage, the wife would need to reduce her expenses or sell her assets to live reasonably well, while the husband would be in a better financial position to enjoy the assets they acquired together. The Court ordered a lump sum spousal support payment of $35,000 and period payments of $500 for 14 months.

The trend continues in Wong v. Wong, 2000 CarswellBC 21, 2000 BCSC 47, [2000] B.C.J. No. 22 (B.C.S.C.), additional reasons at 2000 CarswellBC 1674, 2000 BCSC 1231 (B.C.S.C.). After a 14 year marriage, the wife was earning annual employment income of $42,400 and the husband was determined to be earning $209,960.96. The Court ordered spousal support of $2,000 per month, to be reviewed at the time the husband sold his dental practice.

In O'Neill v. Wolfe, 2001 CarswellBC 145, 2001 BCSC 135, 14 R.F.L. (5th) 155 (B.C.S.C.)., the Court ordered spousal support of $1,000 month for 2 years plus a 60/40 reapportionment of assets in favour of the wife after a long marriage. The wife had worked part-time during the marriage while being the primary caregiver for the 5 children of the marriage. The Court stated that in this type of situation, there is a presumptive claim to equal standards of living upon dissolution of the marriage.

In M.(S.R.) v. M.(I.A.), 2002 CarswellBC 2376, 2002 BCSC 1453 (B.C.S.C.) the court awarded a substantial lump sum to the wife to equalize the standards of living of the parties. In that case, the parties separated after an 11 year marriage and the husband and wife each had substantial assets. With respect to the issue of spousal support, the Court noted that the couple's standard of during the latter years of their marriage was one where they could live comfortably and save substantially for the future. The Court analyzed the issue of economic disadvantage in light of the standard of living actually enjoyed by the parties in the marriage, which included their ability to accumulate substantial savings, not by how they lived on their disposable income, and ordered a lump sum spousal award of $750,000 to the wife.

In Gill v. Gill, 2002 CarswellBC 1594, 2002 BCSC 983 (B.C.S.C.) at the end of an 11 year marriage in which the parties had 2 children, the husband was earning an annual income of $265,000 and the wife was earning $52,000. The wife had worked part-time through much of the marriage, and full-time during the last 3 years of the marriage. The Court ordered the husband to pay interim support of $3,000 per month for 2 years, and a lump sum payment of spousal support in the amount of $150,000 on June 30, 2004 to compensate the wife for her disadvantages and economic losses attributed to the marriage, despite the fact that she earned a significant income.

The trend seems to continue in Merali v. Merali, 2002 CarswellBC 989, 2002 BCSC 529, 27 R.F.L. (5th) 363 (B.C.S.C.). This was a 20 year marriage where the wife had worked in the husband's medical practice. After the breakdown of the marriage, the wife was earning $43,000 per year and the husband was earning an average net income of $133,400. With respect to the assessment of the wife's claim for spousal support, Brooke J. considered, inter alia, the length of the marriage, the roles of the parties during the marriage, the effect of reapportionment of the family assets, and the presumption in favour of a reasonable standard of living comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage. The Court ordered spousal support of $1,500 per month.

The notable factor in the above-mentioned case law is that the wives in those cases did not necessarily have an economic "need". Strictly speaking, they earned incomes sufficient to meet a reasonable standard of living although not that which they enjoyed during the marriage. The courts found that they were entitled to enjoy a standard of living, which so far as it was possible based upon the respective means of the parties, which was similar to that enjoyed during the marriage and, perhaps more importantly, similar to the standard of living enjoyed by their former husband.

Will this trend continue? It's difficult to say. Former Supreme Court of Canada Justice LaMer was recently quoted as stating that he believes that Supreme Court of Canada may need to revisit some of their decisions regarding spousal support in light of the increasing equality of the sexes and higher income earning potential of women in particular. But nevertheless, despite the fact that the legislation does not provide for equalization of standards of living the Court appears to favour that result in many cases.