First, quick housekeeping: child support is for kids—full stop—and it has priority over spousal support under the Divorce Act. That’s why judges tackle child support first (tables, special expenses, the whole nine yards) before even peeking at spousal support. Different bucket, different purpose. Ministère de la Justice+1
Spousal support (what folks often call “alimony”) is money to an ex-spouse. In Canada, entitlement turns on compensatory, non-compensatory (needs-based), or contractual grounds, and only then do courts use the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) to estimate amount and duration. Yes, it’s “advisory,” but judges lean on it a lot. Ministère de la JusticeGovernment of Canada Publications
Reason #1: If the homemaking gig ends, the breadwinning gig shouldn’t go on forever
When a marriage wraps, nobody orders your ex to keep cooking your Sunday roast or ironing your playoff jersey. By symmetry, the breadwinner shouldn’t be conscripted indefinitely either—especially since the law’s goal is to meet legitimate support purposes, not to keep one ex on the hook because “that’s how it used to be.” (And remember: child support is separate and comes first.) Ministère de la Justice+1
Reason #2: Alimony ≠ severance (and Canadian severance is capped, buddy)
People love the “severance for relationships” analogy, but it doesn’t really fly north of the 49th. Under the Canada Labour Code, severance is for certain job losses and it’s finite—measured in days per year of service—not “pay your ex maybe forever.” Meanwhile, the SSAG allow “indefinite (duration not specified)” support after 20+ years of marriage or when the “Rule of 65” kicks in (years married + recipient’s age ≥ 65). Indefinite doesn’t always mean permanent, but it can be a long haul—way past any severance cheque. Canada.ca+1Ministère de la Justice+1
Reason #3: It’s 2025—work exists, and safety nets exist if you can’t
Spousal support evolved when women were largely shut out of paid work. Today, women’s participation is high and rising; Canada’s labour force data show strong female participation across age groups. If someone can work, the labour market’s there; if someone can’t, programs like CPP-Disability exist as targeted supports rather than turning one ex into a lifetime ATM. Statistics Canada+1Canada.ca
Reason #4: No-fault means fault doesn’t matter (yep, even cheating)
You might feel it’s a total gong show to pay support to a spouse who blew up the marriage. But Canada’s no-fault regime says misconduct is irrelevant to spousal support. That’s not me being a keener; that’s literally section 15.2(5) of the Divorce Act. If that grinds your gears, fair—take it up with Parliament, not the judge. Justice Laws Website
Reason #5: Real harms deserve real remedies (not a forever stipend)
If there was abuse, the answer isn’t “make alimony permanent”; it’s tort remedies (assault, battery, intentional infliction of mental suffering) and criminal law where applicable. Ontario’s Court of Appeal has flagged that existing torts—not a novel “family violence tort”—are the lane for civil damages. Use the right tool for the job. Epstein Cole LLP
Reason #6: “I helped you become a doctor!” isn’t a blank cheque
Courts already have reimbursement concepts and property division, and the SSAG temper duration/amount with self-sufficiency goals. The Rule of 65 and 20-year marriage provisions can create indefinite support, but even then, “indefinite” is “duration not specified,” not automatic permanence; reviews and terminations happen when self-sufficiency is reached. That’s a far cry from turning every domestic sacrifice into a lifetime annuity. Ministère de la Justice
Reason #7: If post-split payments matter to you, put it in a contract (like a true planner)
Prefer certainty? Do the Canadian thing and paper it: a domestic contract (prenup/marriage contract or separation agreement) can address spousal support, subject to fairness rules. And the Supreme Court’s Miglin decision gives courts a framework for when to respect or depart from those deals. Translation: get it in writing now so you’re not arguing over Timbits later. OntarioSCC Decisions
But wait—why does spousal support exist at all?
Because our Supreme Court said so, politely and repeatedly. In Moge v. Moge (compensatory support) and Bracklow v. Bracklow (non-compensatory support), the Court recognized that marriages can create economic advantages/disadvantages and post-marital hardship. That’s the doctrinal backbone judges still use—alongside the SSAG—to get to fair (or at least predictable) numbers. If you want abolition, you’re asking to rethink those pillars. SCC DecisionsCanLII
TL;DR (served with ketchup chips and a side of citations)
- Child support: for kids, takes priority. Keep it skookum. Ministère de la Justice
- Spousal support: currently allowed on compensatory, needs-based, or contractual grounds; can be “indefinite” after long marriages or under the Rule of 65, though not necessarily permanent. Ministère de la Justice
- If abolition’s your goal: argue for tighter duration caps, stricter self-sufficiency timelines, or shifting more weight to social insurance/tort remedies instead of lifetime paycheques from an ex. (Also, misconduct is legally irrelevant right now—changing that would require legislative reform.) Justice Laws Website
As always, laws shift faster than a Calgary chinook. If you’re making real-life moves, chat with a family-law lawyer in your province—before your hydro bill and your support math both go sideways.
