LONG MARRIAGE, LEGAL SHORTFALL

 It is usual when a young couple marries without significant assets, money, or an established affordable lifestyle. It is the norm that they build their life together to the point they feel comfortable, a process that takes years if they are not among the lucky few who are lottery winners or recipients of a large inheritance.

This is the main reason the law looks at the length of a marriage when considering spousal support, because a separation or divorce after a long term means the division of both spouses' efforts and cooperation. If, after, say, 20 or 30 years of marriage, one spouse is working with a high income and the other is not, and the high-income earner decides to leave, it can feel like stealing 20 or 30 years of their partner's efforts. It is at this point the law intervenes to mandate spousal support.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a flaw in the law in Canada that allows a court to deny spousal support "If the spouse claiming support has a stable income, significant assets, or the ability to support themselves without assistance."

While, on the surface, denying support because a spouse is able to support herself seems logically sound, what is often not considered is the full context. The spouse who is deemed "able to support herself" is often relying on divided matrimonial assets—assets that the high-income earner also received an equal share of. Furthermore, the high-income earner today is not the same person they were 20 or 30 years ago. Their partner lived with them, sacrificed their youth and life with them, and yet the law denies spousal support merely because she can manage financially!

On top of this, the law doesn't truly account for how each spouse manages their money. Perhaps she uses a minimum amount to manage her lifestyle while he spends the maximum. How, during the division of assets, properties, and other investments, did the law not consider who supported and created those finances, opting instead for a strict 50/50 division, yet when it comes to spousal support, it lets one spouse escape their financial responsibility just because the appearance of their partner's financial health "looks good" and she can afford to buy food?

As a writer and a woman who has experienced this injustice, I suggest the law look critically into this flaw. It must stop one partner, after benefiting from the other's youth, health, and dedication, from living happily ever after while the other is forced to manage her remaining life with only the minimum.