“The seminal cases in Canada on spousal support are Moge v Moge, 1992 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R., 813, and Bracklow v. Bracklow, 1999 CanLII 715 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420. Although both were decided in the 1990s, the principles they enunciate have continued to resonate in the case law since then. First, in Moge, the court noted, at pp. 848-849, “the purpose of spousal support is to relieve economic hardship that results from ‘marriage or its breakdown’. Whatever the respective advantages to the parties of a marriage in other areas, the focus of the inquiry when assessing spousal support after the marriage has ended must be the effect of the marriage in either impairing or improving each party’s economic prospects.”
Bracklow requires the court to consider all the factors and objectives set out in the Divorce Act. The Court said, however, that no single objective is paramount. All must be borne in mind since “[t]he objectives reflect the diverse dynamics of the many unique marital relationships”: at para. 35. The uniqueness of marital relationships means that each case will be fact-driven to a large degree.
Since Moge and Bracklow were decided, the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs), although not law, have often been relied on by judges in determining the quantum and duration of a spousal support order, once a party has established his/her entitlement to spousal support. Unlike the Divorce Act, the SSAGs are not statutory authority. They are guidelines designed to advise on a reasonable range of spousal support and a reasonable duration for spousal support in various circumstances. While the SSAGs are advisory only, courts are required to consider them where they have been addressed by the parties: Fisher v. Fisher, 2008 ONCA 11, 88 O.R. (3d) 241.
The following is a quote taken from Moge, at p. 870:
Although the doctrine of spousal support which focuses on equitable sharing does not guarantee to either party the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, this standard is far from irrelevant to support entitlement (see Mullin v. Mullin (1991), supra, and Linton v. Linton, supra). Furthermore, great disparities in the standard of living that would be experienced by spouses in the absence of support are often a revealing indication of the economic disadvantages inherent in the role assumed by one party. As marriage should be regarded as a joint endeavour, the longer the relationship endures, the closer the economic union, the greater will be the presumptive claim to equal standards of living upon its dissolution (see Rogerson, “Judicial Interpretation of the Spousal and Child Support Provisions of the Divorce Act, 1985 (Part I)”, supra, at pp. 174-75).”