Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Self-Sufficiency- Interpretation of Moge v. Moge

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Self-Sufficiency- Interpretation of Moge v. Moge

    If this should be in a different forum. I apologize, please move it.

    I have been reading a lot of case law on spousal support and most refer to Moge v. Moge. So of course I read it.

    The Judges explained s. 17(7)(a-d) and their interpretation on it but am I interpreting s.17(7)(d) wrong?

    I would like to hear some opinions before I argue my points on s17(7)(d).

    S17(7)- An order made under this section that provides for the support of a spouse should (d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.

    It seems to me that the promotion of self sufficiency is being interchanged with obtaining self sufficiency, or aiding in self sufficiency. I have come to understand that this clause is being read that spousal support should be paid until the partner becomes self sufficient but that self sufficiency may not be obtainable so spousal support will be paid indefinitely.

    Am I close?

    I have come to understand the above but I don't read the clause like that.

    The clause states; should promote self sufficiency. Awarding a tidy, indefinite, spousal support does not promote self sufficiency, it hinders it. You don't promote a bar by saying the beer is warm.

    The way I read it, the spousal support award should be such that it encourages the partner to become self sufficient. And to that end, the award would have to be adjusted downward. Of course there is the qualifier; in so far as practicable. This is where the judge would have to determine what is a reasonable wage the partner could make. The less the partner can reasonably earn, the less the award would be adjusted downward.

    Is my interpretation unreasonable?

    So to look at it holistically; S. 17(7)(a) compensates for sacrifices or causes to share advantages which arose during the marriage, (b) compensates for financial obligations from child care, (c) takes care of immediate needs, (d) keeps it all in check.

    If one partner stayed at home and lost out on advancement opportunities and the other partner gained opportunities, then spousal support should reflect that. However, subsection (7)(d) is the check that prevents that partner from remaining out of the work force. It is reasonable for one partner to stay home when they are living together, but when there are 2 households to maintain, the stay at home spouse needs to pull some weight, in so far as practicable.

    If I were a Judge, this is how I would handle (7)(d); I would consider the first 3 clauses of the subsection. I would have a rough idea where on the SSAG scale the award would land. Then I would determine what wage the partner could reasonable be expected to earn. I would then, in my head, impute an amount which the partner can reasonable be expected to earn. I would make the calculations based on that imputed value. Then I would determine what is a reasonable amount of time to get to that wage and I would scale it over that time. Full support to start then scaled back over time to rest at the final award, which may be indefinite, may be definite, may be an end to support, the first 3 clauses would determine that.

    This promotes self sufficiency.

    Reasonable? Unreasonable? Or is this how it is done? Any opinions?

  • #2
    I thought your ex worked throughout your marriage until such time as she had an accident but received a settlement (presume part of settlement would be for employment replacement?). She then went back to school and retrained and is again working at the same sort of job she had before?

    Indefinite support can be awarded but it can be for $1.00/year.

    You were married 12 years? She has to show how her role in the marriage damaged her career. It seems to me that the only "damage" was an accident for which she was compensated for.

    Comment


    • #3
      All correct.

      Except the same sort of job was temporary and she is now unemployed. She has been applying to different jobs but "just can't seem to find a job"


      I am still interested on peoples opinion or interpretation of s.17(7)(d)

      Comment


      • #4
        I will be following this thread.

        I was married 23 years. 18 of those years I was a stay at home mother. My husband, a lawyer, was able to build up his practice and earn a nice living. Now he is adamant I be in me "self sufficient". I am 52 and have not worked in an office setting since the internet. I am not very marketable. Of course, whatever money I am able to make he hopes he won't have to pay me as much support.

        My research indicates he will most likely pay me support indefinitely.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Karma2016 View Post
          I will be following this thread.

          I was married 23 years. 18 of those years I was a stay at home mother. My husband, a lawyer, was able to build up his practice and earn a nice living. Now he is adamant I be in me "self sufficient". I am 52 and have not worked in an office setting since the internet. I am not very marketable. Of course, whatever money I am able to make he hopes he won't have to pay me as much support.

          My research indicates he will most likely pay me support indefinitely.
          You are likely correct. He would know this. Yours is a "traditional marriage" and you would be entitled to SS. You supported his career. If you add your age 52 to years married you more than exceed requirements - read up on "rule 65"

          Comment


          • #6
            He would know this.
            A short note in response:

            Unless the husband practices family law (and particularly if he does not have a litigation practice), he likely knows little to nothing about family law.


            Different areas of law are more akin to different branches of engineering rather than different medical specialties. The electrical engineer would not dabble in civil engineering, and vice versa.

            Comment


            • #7
              This may be true ^ OrleansLawyer. However, a lawyer tossing around a term such as "self-sufficiency" when referring to his own SS demise, likely has done a summary perusal of the topic. Furthermore, the lawyer has had 23 years to contemplate the matter.

              If he doesn't know about it he will soon!

              Comment


              • #8
                Since I first posted this thread, I have done a lot more case law reading. I have seen different interpretations of this clause.

                Some interpret it as enough money until they get back on their feet.
                Some interpret it as enough money to go back to school or retrain.
                Some interpret it as my way, not so much money that there is no reason to become self-sufficient.

                I guess refer to the case law that fits your interpretation.

                I love Family Law.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Stay home does not support the other spouse's career. That is a cop-out.

                  It could equally be stated that the stay home received shelter, food, and anything else provided by the working spouse without having to earn money to help pay for it.

                  An exception would be if one left school to support the other's education to become a professional and the other was not afforded the same chance.

                  If both partners work, then both are working and neither is supporting the other. So if one is not working, why are they suddenly the reason the other can work.

                  Make no sense.

                  My ex gets 6 figures/year, works part-time after 3rd marriage failed, and I'm still on the hook for another decade.

                  So because I (not her) had a successful business, she will have got to live off me for roughly 40 years by the end of her SS. Instead of paying her way thru life.

                  Nice work, if you can get it. Just saying.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by piggybanktoex View Post
                    Stay home does not support the other spouse's career. That is a cop-out.

                    It could equally be stated that the stay home received shelter, food, and anything else provided by the working spouse without having to earn money to help pay for it.

                    An exception would be if one left school to support the other's education to become a professional and the other was not afforded the same chance.

                    If both partners work, then both are working and neither is supporting the other. So if one is not working, why are they suddenly the reason the other can work.

                    Make no sense.

                    My ex gets 6 figures/year, works part-time after 3rd marriage failed, and I'm still on the hook for another decade.

                    So because I (not her) had a successful business, she will have got to live off me for roughly 40 years by the end of her SS. Instead of paying her way thru life.

                    Nice work, if you can get it. Just saying.
                    There is no "one size fits all" when it comes to SS. Situations vary.

                    Someone who forgoes a career to stay home and look after children and household, so spouse's career flourishes, has a strong argument for SS IMO.

                    Piggybank - why do you not consider "lump sum" payout? While you place no value on what your ex did while you were married, you have found out that the court has a different view.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Piggyback, I was a working mom at the beginning of our 23 year marriage. I worked for a school board and had a potentially nice career ahead of me. While pregnant with baby number 3 while our oldest was only three (3 kids in three years), my "Wasband", an employment lawyer, advised me to take an attractive buy-out the board was offering as it merged with another. In fact, he was my independent legal advice the board paid for before I could accept the buy-out.

                      So I stayed home with the kids. There was no need for daycare costs and latchkey, and Wasband left the house at 5:00 am and returned at 6:00 pm every week day coming home to a perfectly cooked meal. And he went to the office Sunday nights. To this day he still does this. He never had to adjust his schedule, could travel at leisure when necessary, and build himself a solid practice.

                      He did NOTHING at home, not even the yard work. Not even shovelling the snow. So please don't tell me he paid for my shelter and food like I should be grateful. It was an agreed partnership and he discouraged me to find work once the children were in school because that would have meant him having to be more hands on at home.

                      I am now 52 and have not worked in an office setting (I was a paralegal) for 18 years, since before the internet was a thing. I am not very marketable and will never find employment to be self-sufficient to the standard of living I have been.

                      Staying at home with three babies was not fun, nor is it a cop out.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I need to heed my own advise and stay away from this board.

                        My divorce is over, except for the scars.

                        Good luck to you and your wasband.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Piggy Bank,

                          I feel your pain as I am in a similar situation.

                          "in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time."

                          The self-sufficiency objective in the Divorce Act is a joke, especially when combined with the "Rule of 65" that says spousal support is "indefinite". Once spousal support exceeds some amount that there is no incentive for the receiving spouse to work, there is no incentive (and no requirement) to become self-sufficient.

                          It's too late for me, and I imagine for you too, so all I can do is discourage anyone thinking of marriage as much as possible before they fall into the same trap.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I was 52 when our marriage ended. I "wasted" more than 3 years dealing with disposing of our business while ex continued on with his life. Yes it was determined that ours had been a 30-year "traditional" marriage and I was therefore entitled to indefinite SS. As it should be. Sad thing is while I did receive substantial SS for several years, it ended up being used for paying debt a/o going to lawyer as ex kept me in court for 7 years after the divorce with his wasteful, pointless attempts at having the SS eliminated.

                            Since end of my divorce I have indeed worked. I still put in my 40 - 44 hrs/week. I pay taxes, CPP and EI like anyone else. I plan/hope to work for the next 4 or 5 years or beyond. I continue to be entitled to SS (whether I work or not). I have, this past 6 months, given my ex a reprieve from paying me anything as he has, by choice, not worked and instead plays "driving miss daisy" for his g/f who has some health issues. My ex starts to receive his CPP and OAS and 50% of it will come to me to address arrears. I can have the SS reinstated anytime by way of a simple fax sent in to maintenance enforcement.

                            Life is about choices. My ex chose to behave in a manner which led to the end of our long-term marriage. My ex chose to drain our company bank accounts and left me holding the bag w.r.t. corporate CRA tax debt. My ex chose to take me to court after divorce... repeatedly.... which caused me to essentially blow through any remaining crumbs of our assets from the marriage (which I could locate).

                            I am most certainly self-sufficient and always have been. Of course, my standard of living doesn't come close to the one enjoyed prior to divorce. However, I count myself fortunate as I will not be nurse-maid to my ex as he advances through old age. Self-sufficiency calculation isn't the end-all at the conclusion of all marriages. SS is determined on a case-by-case basis - this I cannot stress enough.

                            I recall, at our divorce (JDR) hearing, the judge and lawyers having a lively discussion of my age etc. I was a bit put-off when all these people were discussing me like a) I wasn't there and b) my age precluded me from obtaining a major career. I kept my mouth shut as I knew my lawyer (and judge) were merely looking out for my best interests. However, in reflecting upon the judge's remarks I have to say she was correct in that it was "unlikely" that at age 52 I would see any financial benefit of returning to university (costly) to complete a graduate degree. I suppose if my ex was a typical, well-behaving ex, who sincerely wished me well... I might be currently earning 6-figure salary today. Nope, my ex was an ahole who instead was determined that I would not be able to enjoy the substantial SS he was forced to pay. This is just one of many mistakes he made post-divorce. The 3 years I spent immediately after our divorce I would have much preferred to have been at university. I could (nothing is certain) quite possibly be enjoying a high-paying career today.

                            If someone is able to retrain and re-enter the workforce (even at age 52) I would recommend it. Many people continue to work into their 70s. 60 is the new 40 I say!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The system is very lenient toward people who are not self-sufficient.

                              I guess the take away from this is; marry in your pay grade, and don't let anyone stay home even if their net monthly income will be $5 after day care. It seems silly, until you get divorced.

                              Comment

                              Our Divorce Forums
                              Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                              Working...
                              X