“This is a classic example of why there are exceptions built into the SSAGs. Where the SSAG formula generates results that are inconsistent with the objectives of the Divorce Act or the Family Law Act, an appropriate result is achieved by departing from the formula, for example:
a. For short marriages, that can involve large compensatory claims that are disproportionate to the length of the marriage (SSAGs, c. 12.5); and
b. Where there is a prior agreement, the SSAGs cannot be used to override an existing agreement (SSAGs, c. 5.2).
In short term marriages, support may be required to alleviate economic loss, such as when one spouse moves across the country (or from another country) to marry and has given up a job or business. These types of circumstances can also bring the situation under the basic needs/hardship exception of the SSAGs. Compelling financial circumstances at the interim stage may dictate a higher amount of support for a transitional period: Divorce Act, s. 15.2(6)(c), and SSAGs, cc. 10.1 and 12.7.
An agreement, such as the Sponsorship Agreement that includes a promise by the Applicant to support the Respondent for three (3) years, is also a relevant factor in deciding spousal support. The existence of such an agreement can create a reasonable expectation that the wife in this case would receive financial assistance from her husband: M. (O.) v. M. (N.E.), 2003 BCPC 99, 40 R.F.L. (5th) 189, and F.Y. v. F.F.G., 2005 MBQB 36, 16 R.F.L. (6th) 420, at para. 43.”