No-Fault Divorce, Equal Splits—and Endless Support? Why Many See the Current Model as Unfair

The core grievance

If two adults mutually agree to end a marriage—or one spouse chooses to end it in a no-fault system—why should the higher earner owe ongoing monthly spousal support after the assets have already been split 50/50? That’s the complaint I hear most from payors: “We divided everything equally. There’s no wrongdoing to compensate. Why am I still writing cheques?” The frustration is amplified when the lower-income spouse is the initiator and self-evidently capable of working.

This essay outlines the case against routine post-divorce support in those circumstances. It also explains how the law got here, why the stated goals of spousal support often drift in practice, and how reforms elsewhere hint at a more principled approach.

What spousal support is supposed to do—on paper

In Canada, courts order spousal support under the federal Divorce Act. The statute sets out four objectives: recognize economic advantages/disadvantages from the marriage or its breakdown, apportion financial consequences of child care, relieve economic hardship arising from the breakdown, and—insofar as practicable—promote each spouse’s self-sufficiency within a reasonable period of time. Importantly, misconduct is not supposed to matter. We’re in a no-fault framework focused on economics, not morality. Justice Laws Website

To structure (but not dictate) outcomes, Canadian courts often rely on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG). The SSAG insist on a threshold question: entitlement must be proven on a compensatory basis (e.g., lost career because of marital roles), a non-compensatory basis (true need/hardship), or a contractual basis—a mere income gap is not enough. And even when support begins, the system’s stated ideal remains eventual self-sufficiency. Ministère de la Justice+1

The SSAG also explain why some orders are “indefinite” in longer marriages (20+ years or the “rule of 65”). But “indefinite” is not synonymous with permanent; support can and should be reduced or terminated as self-sufficiency is reached. Ministère de la Justice

So far, so reasonable.

How we drift from principles to paycheques

1) Equal property division already performs much of the fairness work

In many jurisdictions (for example, Ontario), the default remedy at separation is equalization of net family property—an accounting mechanism that gives each spouse half the growth in wealth during the marriage. That’s meant to recognize the marital partnership and redistribute gains without peering into fault. In practice, it often results in a de-facto 50/50 split of net growth, accomplished via a cash equalization payment. OntarioFeldstein Family Law Group, P.C.Loopstra Nixon LLP

When a couple already equalizes wealth and there are no child-care burdens to rebalance, ongoing monthly support starts to look like a second bite at the same fairness apple—especially in no-fault situations where the law explicitly tells judges not to punish or reward conduct. Justice Laws Website

2) “No-fault” means the initiator’s choice doesn’t change the economics—but it feels like it should

No-fault divorce exists to avoid perjury wars and moral show trials. Canada recognizes marriage breakdown without assigning blame; one year of separation is a sufficient ground, along with adultery or cruelty if a party needs a faster route. But the ground for divorce is conceptually separate from support. The Act still asks courts to look at economic consequences, not who walked away. That design makes sense in the abstract and prevents punitive outcomes—but it creates visceral unfairness when the lower-income spouse chooses to leave and yet still receives monthly support despite a clean 50/50 asset split. Ministère de la Justice+1

3) In practice, “need” can be elastic

Canadian law recognizes compensatory claims (e.g., someone paused a career to raise kids) and non-compensatory claims (genuine post-separation hardship). Landmark Supreme Court cases—Moge v. Moge and Bracklow v. Bracklow—expanded both pathways. Those decisions rightly addressed real inequities, but they also broadened the grounds for entitlement beyond what many laypeople think “fairness” should capture once property is already equalized. SCC DecisionsDivorceNetGovernment of Canada Publications

The result: a payor who has already transferred half the marital wealth can still fund a former partner’s transition, sometimes for years, even when both are healthy, employable adults. That may fit the letter of the law; it often violates the spirit of mutual exit and self-sufficiency many imagined when they agreed to no-fault.

4) The tax rule change made support feel heavier

Until 2018 in the U.S., alimony was generally deductible for the payer and taxable to the recipient. That shifted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for divorces finalized in 2019 or later: payors lost the deduction while recipients no longer include it in income. The math is simple—support dollars got “more expensive” for the one writing the cheque. This change doesn’t control Canadian outcomes, but for cross-border couples and the broader debate about fairness, it’s a useful illustration of how policy can stack burdens on one side of the ledger. IRS+1

“But alimony isn’t rare.” True—and is still contentious.

Where reforms have already moved the needle

Even within no-fault systems, some legislatures have tightened spousal support to reflect self-sufficiency and predictability:

• Florida (2023) abolished permanent alimony, limiting courts to bridge-the-gap, rehabilitative (capped at five years), or durational forms with clear ceilings. The law also requires courts to consider retirement and other life-cycle events more directly. The Florida Senate
• Massachusetts (2011) imposed formulaic duration caps keyed to the length of marriage, sharply curtailing the “lifetime alimony” phenomenon that had become a flashpoint. Massachusetts General Court
• New Jersey (2014) replaced “permanent alimony” with open-durational alimony, alongside clearer modification triggers—particularly around retirement. Functionally, that reform narrowed true lifetime orders. NJ.gov

These are not fringe jurisdictions; they’re large, diverse states responding to persistent complaints from payors and payees alike that outcomes were too uncertain, too long-lived, and too easily decoupled from actual hardship.

The fairness case against routine support after a 50/50 split

1) Equal splits already capture partnership value

If marriage is an economic partnership, the equalization or equitable division of marital gains does the heavy lifting. After that transfer, both people start post-marriage life with a fair share of accumulated wealth. It’s hard to justify additional monthly transfers absent specific and provable compensatory loss (e.g., a demonstrable, long-term hit to human capital resulting from agreed marital roles). Canadian law nominally requires this “entitlement” showing; the critique is that practice sometimes treats income disparity alone as enough. The SSAG caution against exactly that. Ministère de la Justice

2) No-fault shouldn’t morph into no-responsibility

No-fault removed moral blame from ending a marriage. It did not repeal adult responsibility for supporting oneself when able. The Divorce Act itself embraces a transition to self-sufficiency “within a reasonable period of time.” Policies that extend support long after equalization risk converting a bridge into a subsidy, dulling the incentive to retrain, relocate, or right-size expenses as single-life realities set in. Justice Laws Website

3) The perverse-incentive problem is real

Most family-lawyers act ethically and work hard to settle cases. Still, any system that grants open-ended discretion and monthly annuities invites rent-seeking—by either party and sometimes by professionals who profit from prolonged uncertainty. The more subjective the “need” analysis, the greater the incentive to shape facts toward longer or higher awards. Critics of lifetime or indefinite alimony in U.S. states made that exact point, and legislatures responded with caps and clearer rules. Lynch & Owens, P.C.Massachusetts General Court

4) Public legitimacy matters

Divorce law must feel legitimate to ordinary people, not just doctrinally coherent to experts. When a capable, employable recipient continues to draw support years after a clean 50/50 division—especially if they initiated the split—many payors perceive the arrangement as unfair and even punitive in a supposedly no-fault world. That perception gap erodes compliance and fuels needless litigation.

A better rule for no-fault, equal-split cases

Here’s a reform model consistent with both fairness and compassion:

1. Clear presumption of no ongoing support after a genuine equal division of assets when:
   • the marriage had no dependent children or child-care sacrifices that created lasting career penalties, and
   • neither spouse can show a specific, evidence-based compensatory loss tied to the marital roles (not just a temporary post-separation wobble), and
   • the lower-income spouse is capable of self-support with reasonable effort.
   This is not radical; the SSAG already stress that entitlement is a threshold and income gaps alone don’t qualify. Codifying that presumption would align practice with principle. Ministère de la Justice
2. Time-limited transitional support where needed, with a hard outer cap aligned to marriage length (think Massachusetts-style duration bands) and automatic step-downs that reflect expected re-entry to work. Massachusetts General Court
3. Lump-sum adjustments (where liquidity permits) rather than long tail monthly orders, to reduce conflict and eliminate incentive games around raises, promotions, or retirements.
4. Fast-track termination triggers for:
   • self-sufficiency reached (income or assets),
   • retirement at normative ages, or
   • cohabitation/remarriage that effectively merges the recipient’s household finances (several jurisdictions already do this).
5. Transparent findings: require written reasons that tie any support award to one of the Divorce Act objectives (economic disadvantage from the marriage, child-care financial consequences, true hardship)—and explain why self-sufficiency cannot be reached without temporary help. Justice Laws Website

“What about long marriages or real sacrifices?”

Genuine compensatory cases absolutely exist: a spouse exits the workforce for a decade to raise children or move for the other’s career and cannot realistically rebuild to a comparable level. Canadian law recognized this in Moge; Bracklow added a narrow safety-net rationale for true hardship even without classic career sacrifice. The case against routine support does not deny those realities. It simply insists that proof, not presumption, should drive the outcome—and that equalization payments should be credited as part of the remedy, not ignored. SCC DecisionsDivorceNet

“Isn’t this all just culture-war rhetoric?”

You don’t need culture-war language to critique bad incentives. Indeed, mainstream reforms have already happened:

• Florida eliminated permanent alimony in 2023, tightened types, and capped durations—explicitly to increase predictability and reduce litigation. The Florida Senate
• Massachusetts and New Jersey curtailed lifetime awards years earlier, moving toward rules that respect retirement and put end-dates on most orders. Massachusetts General CourtNJ.gov

Those changes were not about “sides.” They were about clarity, proportionality, and self-sufficiency—the same values embedded in Canada’s statute but sometimes lost in translation to real-world outcomes. Justice Laws Website

The empirical reality: small share, big emotions, easy fixes

Yes, only a minority of divorces involve alimony at all (about 10% in U.S. estimates). That makes reform easier: we’re not uprooting an entire system, only tightening a corner of it to better fit its stated aims. And for those 1-in-10 cases, getting it right matters immensely—not just financially but for the legitimacy of family law. Reuters

What a principled, post-no-fault regime looks like

1. Front-load fairness through the property division you already have. Equalization is the proper tool to recognize the marital partnership and redistribute gains. Don’t duplicate that work with automatic ongoing support. Ontario
2. Narrow entitlement to cases with provable compensatory loss or clear hardship—never to income disparity alone. The SSAG and the Divorce Act both point there already; codify and enforce it. Ministère de la JusticeJustice Laws Website
3. Prefer short, transitional orders over long tails. Write the path to termination into the order. (Florida, Massachusetts, and New Jersey offer statutory examples.) The Florida SenateMassachusetts General CourtNJ.gov
4. Respect retirement and life-cycle changes with clear, presumptive reduction/termination at normal retirement—again, a growing statutory trend. Massachusetts General Court
5. Use lump-sum support where possible, to cut down on conflict and compliance issues.

Conclusion: keep no-fault, retire default support after equal splits

No-fault divorce was a civilizing reform. It made exit honest and reduced perjury. But in the subset of cases where the marriage ends by mutual consent (or at the behest of the lower earner), the assets are already equalized, there are no child-care penalties to compensate, and both adults are capable of work, ongoing spousal support ceases to serve the Divorce Act’s own purposes. It stops being a bridge and starts being a subsidy.

The good news is we don’t need a revolution—just a re-alignment of practice with the principles the law already proclaims: compensate true economic losses, relieve short-term hardship, and promote self-sufficiency “within a reasonable period of time.” That’s not anti-anyone; it’s pro-clarity, pro-dignity, and pro-adult responsibility. Justice Laws Website

Sources & further reading

• Divorce Act (Canada), s. 15.2 (objectives; self-sufficiency; misconduct excluded). Justice Laws Website
• Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (Canada)—final report and revised user’s guide (entitlement as threshold; “indefinite” ≠ permanent; self-sufficiency focus). Ministère de la Justice+2Ministère de la Justice+2
• Moge v. Moge (SCC)—compensatory foundation; Bracklow v. Bracklow (SCC)—non-compensatory “needs” support recognized. SCC DecisionsDivorceNet
• Ontario equalization regime (presumption of equal division of net family property). Ontario
• Florida SB 1416 (2023)—permanent alimony eliminated; durations capped. The Florida Senate
• Massachusetts Alimony Reform Act (2011)—duration caps keyed to marriage length. Massachusetts General Court
• New Jersey (2014) reforms—“permanent” replaced with “open-durational,” clearer modification rules. NJ.gov
• Reuters (2015)—alimony occurs in roughly ~10% of U.S. divorces today. Reuters
• IRS (2019 rule)—alimony no longer deductible/taxable for divorces finalized after 2018 (illustrating payor burden in U.S. cases). IRS