Thesis: If everyone knows that living on—or being supplemented by—an ex’s income won’t be an option, people of all genders will invest in employable skills before committing. That protects both partners, fits a two-income reality, and reduces old-school power imbalances. Keep child support (it’s for kids, not exes). Retire lifetime spousal support and replace it with short, targeted transitions to self-sufficiency.
The legal ground we’re standing on (today)
- Child support takes priority. When courts consider both child and spousal support, they must deal with child support first. That’s black-letter law in the Divorce Act (s. 15.3). Justice Laws Website
- Why spousal support exists: Canadian law recognizes three paths to entitlement—compensatory (marriage-created economic disadvantage), non-compensatory (need/hardship), and contractual. The Supreme Court cemented this framework in Moge v. Moge (compensatory) and Bracklow v. Bracklow (non-compensatory). SCC Decisions+1
- Misconduct ≠ a factor. We’re a no-fault regime: courts “shall not take into consideration any misconduct of a spouse” when making a spousal-support order (Divorce Act, s. 15.2(5)). Leskun confirms this (though consequences of misconduct may affect ability to be self-sufficient). Justice Laws WebsiteSCC Decisions
- Self-sufficiency is an objective. The Divorce Act tells courts to promote each spouse’s self-sufficiency within a reasonable period—but it’s balanced with other objectives and assessed case-by-case. The federal Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) guide amount/duration once entitlement exists. Ministère de la Justice+1
- Indefinite doesn’t always mean permanent. Under the SSAG, long marriages (20+ years) or the “Rule of 65” (years married + recipient’s age ≥ 65) can trigger “indefinite (duration not specified)” support—reviewable later and not guaranteed for life. Ministère de la Justice
Why the policy should evolve (without touching child support)
1) Canada is a two-income country now.
Dual-earner couples with children became the norm decades ago, rising from 36% to ~69% of such families by the mid-2010s, with many households having both parents working full-time. Today’s labour market and household budgets generally assume two earners—design your family strategy accordingly. Statistics Canada+1
2) Skills first = equality in practice.
If people know they cannot rely on post-marital cheques, they’re incentivized to build skills before marriage—reducing dependence and the leverage historically associated with the higher earner. That’s how you chip away at old power dynamics while remaining gender-neutral.
3) Keep child support strong and simple.
Child support is set by tables keyed to the payor’s income (with adjustments for parenting time and special expenses). It funds kids’ needs, not an adult’s lifestyle—and the federal system is built to enforce it. Ministère de la Justice+1
4) Distinguish sacrifice from refusal to work.
Courts already can impute income when someone is intentionally under-employed or unemployed (Federal Child Support Guidelines, s. 19(1)(a)), and that logic is often carried into spousal-support income determinations. Ontario’s Drygala v. Pauli is the go-to case on this test. If a partner could work but simply chose not to, the law doesn’t have to reward that. Justice LawsvLex
“But what about the spouse who gave up a career for the family?”
That’s exactly where targeted, time-limited support makes sense.
- Canadian courts already do this: Ontario’s Fisher v. Fisher upheld a seven-year transitional order after a 19-year marriage—enough time to adjust and re-establish, not an annuity. The SSAG literature even cites Fisher as an example of front-end-loaded transition toward self-reliance. vLexMinistère de la Justice
- Where a spouse truly cannot become self-sufficient (e.g., disability; age + long marriage), courts can still order longer support under existing rules. But that should be the exception, not the default. Ministère de la Justice
The reform package (Canada edition)
- End “forever” by statute. Make time-limited (rehabilitative/transitional) spousal support the default outside clear SSAG exceptions (e.g., long marriages/Rule of 65), with built-in review dates. This aligns with the Divorce Act’s self-sufficiency objective and current appellate practice. Ministère de la JusticevLex
- Codify a stronger work-expectation presumption. Where evidence shows work capacity, impute income unless the recipient proves a justified exception (health, childcare needs, etc.), mirroring s. 19(1)(a)’s approach. Justice Laws
- Use contracts where couples want bespoke safety nets. Canada already gives substantial weight to well-negotiated domestic contracts; the Supreme Court’s Miglin test sets when to respect or revisit them. Encourage couples to plan rather than litigate post-facto. SCC Decisions
- Keep child support untouched (and enforce it). It remains calculated primarily from the payor’s income using the federal/provincial tables, with adjustments for parenting time and special expenses. Ministère de la Justice+1
Bottom line
- Child support stays and stays strong—it’s about kids and has statutory priority. Justice Laws Website
- Lifetime spousal support should go. Replace it with short, goal-linked support aimed at getting the recipient back to market income, reserving longer awards for true exceptions (long marriages, age/disability). Ministère de la Justice
- Skills before vows protects both partners, reflects Canada’s two-earner reality, and chips away at outdated dependency dynamics without gutting the safety net where it’s still needed. Statistics Canada+1
Key Canadian sources (for easy checking)
- Divorce Act ss. 15.2 & 15.3; misconduct barred by s. 15.2(5). Justice Laws Website+2Justice Laws Website+2
- SSAG & Rule of 65 (indefinite ≠ guaranteed permanent). Ministère de la Justice
- Moge (compensatory), Bracklow (needs-based), Leskun (misconduct’s limited role). SCC Decisions+2SCC Decisions+2
- Fisher (time-limited transitional order after 19-year marriage). vLexMinistère de la Justice
- Child support tables (payor-income-based). Ministère de la Justice+1
- Imputing income when a party won’t work (s. 19(1)(a); Drygala). Justice LawsvLex
- Two-earner reality (StatsCan/Vanier). Statistics Canada+1
(This is policy advocacy, not legal advice. If you’re in a live case, talk to a family-law lawyer in your province.)
