During their marriage and after separation, the husband remained financially dependent on the wife
The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a spousal support order in a divorce case involving an “unusual set of circumstances.”
The case, marking the end of a third marriage for both parties involved, centred on the trial judge's decision to order the appellant wife, a grocery store clerk, to pay retroactive non-compensatory spousal support totalling $39,000 for the years 2014 to 2016 to the respondent-husband.
Throughout their marriage, and after their separation in December 2013, the husband remained financially dependent on the wife, despite engaging in various business ventures, including the wildlife sanctuary, which generated minimal revenue. The trial judge found that the wife had enabled the husband's financial dependence by acquiescing to his lifestyle and employment choices, necessitating a transitional period of financial assistance for the husband post-separation.
The appellant wife challenged the trial judge’s findings on several grounds, including determining financial dependence and the order for retroactive spousal support. However, the Court of Appeal deferred to the trial judge's discretion, highlighting the fact-intensive and discretionary nature of spousal support decisions. The appellate court noted the ample evidence supporting the trial judge's conclusions, including the wife's assumption of financial responsibilities during the marriage and her significant contributions to household expenses.
The Court of Appeal also addressed the appellant's concerns regarding the lack of explicit consideration of issues such as "effective notice" for support claims and income tax consequences of lump-sum support payments. Given the broader context of the appellant's financial support during the relevant period, the court found these points insufficient to overturn the trial judge's decision.
The appellant also contested the trial judge's rulings on occupancy rent, the reimbursement of expenses related to the matrimonial home, and her claim for sole ownership of the property. The appellate court upheld the trial judge’s discretion in these matters, citing the equitable balance struck between the parties’ competing claims.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal reinforced the principle of deference to trial judges in family law, where the intricate details of each case inform the exercise of discretion. The appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent.
