Remedies Available under Provincial and Territorial Legislation
Author | Julien D. Payne - Marilyn A. Payne |
Pages | 647-702 |
Remedies Available under Provincial
and Territorial Legislation
A. SPOUSAL SUPPORT
) Diversity under Provincial and Territorial Statutes
Separated spouses may opt to see k spousal support u nder provincia l or
territoria l legislation or by way of coroll ary relief in d ivorce proceedings.
Unmarried coh abitants of the opposite sex or of the sa me sex may also be
entitled to seek “spousal ” support under provincial or territorial leg islation.
Provincia l spousal support legislation th at discriminates again st couples liv-
ing in a “common-law relationship” or in a same-se x relationship has been
struck down a s contravening equality r ights under section of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In most provinces and terr itories, both federal ly and provincia lly ap-
pointed judges may adjudicate spousa l and child suppor t claims t hat arise
independently of divorce.
Provincia l and territorial statutes die r widely from each other i n their
specic provis ions respecting spousal support. e y also dier substantia lly
from the langu age of the federal Divorce A ct, which regul ates spousal support
on or after divorce.
British Columbia provides genera l statutory criteri a for spousal s upport
orders that correspond to the factors a nd objectives dened in t he federal
Divorce Ac t. Several prov inces, including New Br unswick , Newfoundl and
Taylor v Rossu (), RFL (th) (Alta C A).
M v H, [] SCR .
Part I of e Constit ution Act, , bei ng Schedule B to the Canad a Act (UK), ,
c .
Family Law Act, SBC , c , ss – .
Family Services Ac t, SNB , c F-., s ().
and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontar io, Prince Edwa rd Island, and the Nor th-
west Territories provide a detaile d statutory list of fac tors that the courts
should take into account in deter mining the right to, duration of, and amou nt
of spousal support. e shor tcomings of an unre ned list of designated
factors, which lead to unbr idled judicia l discretion, have been te mpered in
Newfound land and L abrador, the Northwest Territories, Onta rio, a nd
Saskatchewan by the articulat ion of specic objectives for suppor t orders.
ese objectives are simi lar but not identical to those de ned in the cur rent
Divorce Ac t. Accordingly, they promote consistency between provinci al and
federal statutory c riteria but fall short of prov iding a blueprint for uniformit y.
Provincia l statutory spousal support r ights and obligations are no longer
conditioned on proof of a matrimonia l oence. Alberta, British Columbi a,
Manitob a, New Brun swick, Newf oundland and Lab rador, the Northwest
Territories, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec , Saskatchewan,
and Yu kon have all abandoned the traditional oence concept i n favour of
economic criteria t hat largely focus on needs and abil ity to pay. In Newfound-
land and Labrador, the Northwest Territor ies, and Ontar io, the spousal
support obligation “exist s without regard to the conduct of either spouse, but
the court may in deter mining the amount of support have regard to a course
of conduct that is so unconscionable as to cons titute an obvious and g ross
Family Law Act, R SNL , c F-, s ().
Maintenanc e and Custody Act, R SNS , c , s .
Family Law Act, RS O , c F., s ().
Family Law Act, S PEI , c , s ().
Family Law Act, SN WT , c , s .
Family Law Act, RS NL , c F-, s ().
Family Law Act, SNW T , c , ss (), (), (), (), (), & ().
Family Law Act, R SO , c F., s ().
Family Maintenance Act, SS , c F-., s .
RSC , c (d Supp), ss .() and (); see Chapt er , Section G.
Family Law Act, SA , c F-., ss – .
Family Law Act, S BC , c , ss – .
Family Maintenance Act, CCSM c F, ss and .
Family Service s Act, SNB , c F-. , ss and ().
Family Law Act, R SNL , c F-, ss and ().
Family Law Act, SN WT , c , ss and (), (), (), (), & ().
Family Law Act, RS O , c F., ss and ().
Family Law Act, SPEI , c , ss , (), and ().
Civil Code of Québec, SQ , c , arts , , and –.
Family Maintenance Act, SS , c F-. , ss and .
Family Property a nd Support Act, R SY , c , ss and ().
Family Law Act, R SNL , c F-, s ().
Family Law Act, SN WT , c , s ().
Family Law Act, R SO , c F., s ().
Chapter : Reme dies Available under Provincial and Terr itorial Legislation
repudiation of the [spousal] rel ationship.” Although there has been some
inconsistency in the appl ication of these statutory provisions, t here has been
strong judicial resi stance to spouses engag ing in mutual rec riminations.
Manitoba, which or iginal ly applied a similar criterion of unconsc ionability,
abandoned conduct as a relevant consideration a ltogether by amending legis-
lation in . In Alberta and Br itish Columbia, courts may ta ke misconduct
into account only where it arbitrari ly or unreasonably precipitates, prolongs,
or aggravates the need for suppor t, or aects the abi lity of the obligor to
provide suppor t. In New Brunswick and Nova Scoti a, the relevant leg is-
lation expressly stipulates that court s may take conduct into account if it
unreasonably prolongs the need for suppor t. ese statutory provi sions are
consistent with the stat utory obligation on each spous e to strive for nan-
cial self -suciency. In Yukon, a court is s pecical ly empowered to deny
support to a spouse who has rem arried or is cohabiting with a th ird party in
a relationship of some perma nence.
) Dierences between Federal Divorce Act and Provincial
and Territorial Leg islation
Dierences in provinc ial and terr itorial legi slation and in the federa l di-
vorce legislation are pri marily dierences of form rat her than of substance,
whether the courts a re dealing wit h conduct or any other matter. If Mrs
Jones is separated from her husband, a judge i s unlikely to allow the r ight to,
duration of, and amount of support to depend on whet her she has invoked
the provisions of the applic able provincial or te rritoria l statute or the rel-
evant provisions of the D ivorce Act.
However, certain import ant dierences remai n between the provi ncial
and territoria l support regimes and the federal d ivorce regime. In particular,
provincial a nd territoria l legislation confers broader po wers on the courts
with respect to the t ypes of orders that ca n be granted in proceed ings for
Compare Maintenance and Cus tody Act, RSNS , c , s ().
See Jul ien D Payne, “e Rele vance of Conduct to the As sessment of Spousal Ma inte-
nance under t he Ontario Family Law R eform Act, SO , c ” () Fam L Rev ,
reprinted in Pa yne’s Digest on Divorce in Canada, – (D on Mills, ON: R De Boo,
) at . Compare Br uni v Bruni, ONSC (p arental alien ation). See also
Menegaldo v Menegaldo, ONSC .
Family Maintenance Act, SM , c , s , now CCSM c F, s ().
Family Law Act, SA , c F-., s ; Family Law Ac t, SBC , c , s .
Family Services Ac t, SNB , c F-., s ()(t).
Maintenance and Custo dy Act, RSNS , c , s ().
Family Property a nd Support Act, R SY , c , s ().
Snyder v Pictou, NSCA ; Hrenyk v Berden, SKQB .
To continue reading
Request your trial