Remedies Available under Provincial and Territorial Legislation

• Author: Julien D. Payne/Marilyn A. Payne
• Pages: 411-443

 

REMEDIES AVAILABLE

UNDER PROVINCIAL AND

TERRITORIAL LEGISLATION

A. SPOUSAL SUPPORT

) Diversity under Provincial and Territorial Statutes

Separated spou ses may opt to seek spou sal support u nder provincia l or

territoria l legislation or by way of corol lary relief in divorce procee dings.

Unmarriedcohabitantsoftheoppositesexorofthesamesexmayalso

be entitled to se ek “spousal” supp ort under provinc ial or territor ial leg-

islation. Provincial spousal support legislation that discriminates against

coupleslivingina“common-lawrelationship”

or in a same-sex relat ion-

shiphas been struckdown as contravening equalityrights under section

 of the Canadian Char ter of Rights and Freedoms.

In most provinc es and territories, both feder ally and provincial ly ap-

pointed judges may adjud icate spousal and ch ild support clai ms that arise

independentlyofdivorce.

Provincialandterritorialstatutesdif‌ferwidelyfromeachotherin

their speci f‌ic provisions respecting spousal support. ey al so dif‌fer sub-

stantially from the language of the federal Divorce Act, which regulates

spousal suppor t on or after divorce.

Tayl or v. Ross u (),R.F.L.(th)(Alta.C.A.).

M. v. H.,[]S.C.R..



 CANADIAN FAMILY LAW

British Columbiaprov ides very general statutory cr iteria for spousal

support orders. Se veral provinces , including New Br unswick, New found-

land and Labr ador, Nova Scotia,Ontario,Prince Edward Island,and

the Northwest Terr itoriesprovide a detailed st atutory li st of factors that

the courts s hould take into account in determ ining the right to, durat ion,

and amount of spousal support. e shor tcomings of an unref‌i ned list of

designatedfactors,whichleadtounbridledjudicialdiscretion,havebeen

tempered in New foundland a nd Labrador, the Northwest Territories

Ontario, and Saskatchewan by the articulation of specif‌ic objectives

for support orders.ese objectives are simila r but not identical to those

def‌ined in the c urrent Divorce Act. Accordingly, they promote consis-

tency bet ween provincia l and federal s tatutory cr iteria but fal l short of

providingablueprintforuniformity.

Provincia l statutor y spousal s upport right s and obligations are no

longer conditioned on proof of a matrimonial of‌fence . British Colum-

bia, Manitoba, New Brun swick, New foundland a nd Labrador, the

Northwest Territories, Onta rio, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Sas-

katchewan, andthe YukonTerritory

 haveall abandonedthe traditional

of‌fenceconcept in favour ofeconomic criteriat hat largely focuson needs

and abilit y to pay. In Newfound land and La brador, the Northwest Ter-

Family Rel ations Act , R.S.B.C.,c.,ss..

Family Ser vices Act ,S.N.B.,c.F-.,s.().

Family Law A ct,R.S.N.,c.F-,s.().

Family Maintenance Act, R.S.N.S. , c. , s. .

Family Law A ct, R.S.O.,c.F.,s.().

Family Law A ct, S.P.E.I., c. , s. ().

Family Law A ct,S.N.W.T.,c.,s..

 Family Law A ct,R.S.N.,c.F-,s.().

 Family Law A ct,S.N.W.T.,,c.,ss.(),(),(),(),(),&().

 Family Law A ct, R.S.O. , c. F.,s. ().

 Family Maintenance Act,S.S.,c.F-.,s..

 R.S.C.  (nd Supp.), c. , ss. .() & ().

 Family Rel ations Act , R.S.B.C.,c.,s..

 Family Maintenance Act, R.S.M.,c.F,ss.&.

 Family Ser vices Act ,S.N.B.,c.F-.,ss.&().

 Family Law A ct,R.S.N.,c.F-,ss.&().

 Family Law A ct,S.N.W.T.,c.,ss.&(),(),(),()and().

 Family Law A ct,R.S.O.,c.F.,ss.&().

 Family Law A ct, S.P.E.I.,c.,ss.,(),&().

 Civil Code of Quebec,S.Q.,c.,art.,,–.

 Family Maintenance Act,S.S.,c.F-.,ss.&.

 Family Property and Support Act, R.S.Y.,c.,ss.&().

 Family Law A ct, R.S. N. , c. F-, s. ().

Remedies Available u nder Provinci al and Territorial Le gislation

ritories, and Ontario, the spousal supp ort obligation “exi sts without

regard to the conduct of either spouse, but the court may in determin-

ingtheamountofsupporthaveregardtoacourseofconductthatisnot

unconscionable as to constitute a n obvious and gross repudiation of the

[spousal] relationship.” Although there has been some inconsistency in

the application of t hese statutor y provisions, t here has been st rong ju-

dicial resist ance to spouses engaging i n mutual recrimi nations. Mani-

toba, which originally applied a si milar criterion of unconscionabilit y,

abandoned conduct as a rele vant consideration a ltogether by amendi ng

legislationin.

 In New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, the relevant

legisl ation expressly st ipulates that cou rts may take conduc t into account

if it unreasonably prolongs the need for supp ort. ese statutory provi-

sionsa reconsistent withthe statutory obligation oneach spouse to strive

for f‌inancial self-suf‌f‌iciency. In the Yukon Territory, a court is specif‌i-

callyempoweredtodenysupporttoaspousewhohasremarriedoris

cohabitingwithathirdpartyinarelationshipofsomepermanence.

) Differences between Federal Divorce Act and

Provincial and Territorial Legislation

Dif‌ferences in prov incial a nd territoria l legislation a nd in the federa l

divorce legislation are primarily dif‌ferences of form rather than of sub-

stance, whether the courts are dealing with conduct or any other matter.

If Mrs. Jones i s separated f rom her husband, a jud ge is unli kely to allow

therightto,duration,andamountofsupporttodependonwhethershe

has invoked the prov isions of the appl icable provincia l or territorial stat-

uteortherelevantprovisionsoftheDivorce Act.

Certai n importa nt dif‌ferences rem ain between the provinci al and

territoria l support regi mes and the feder al divorce reg ime. In par ticula r,

provincia l and territorial legislat ion confers broader powers on the cou rts

withrespecttothetypesoforderthatcanbegrantedinproceedingsfor

 Family Law A ct,S.N.W.T.,c.,s.().

 Family Law A ct, R.S.O. , c. F.,s. ().

 Compare Family Maintenance Act, R.S.N.S. ,c. , s. ().

 See Julien D. Payne, “e Relevanc e of Conduct to the Assessment of Spousal

Maintenance under t he Reform Act,S.O.,c.”()Fam. LawRev.,

reprinted in Payne’s Digest on Divorce in Canada, belownoteat.

 Family Maintenance Act,S.M.,c.,s.,nowR.S.M.,c.F,s.().

 Family Ser vices Act ,S.N.B.,c.F-.,s.()(t).

 Family Maintenance Act, R.S.N.S. , c. , s. ().

 Family Property and Support Act,R.S.Y.,c.,s..