The court in Cameron v. Cameron addressed the issue of spousal support when quantum and duration is unclear. The husband had previously been paying spousal support for 16 years and brought a motion to terminate his support obligations. In comparison, the wife was unable to earn an income for herself because of a disability and wanted spousal support to increase and continue.

Background

The parties in Cameron v Cameron married in May of 1993 and separated in January of 2009. However, the exact duration of their relationship was unclear as the parties could not agree on when they had commenced cohabitation. The parties shared four children and had previously signed a separation agreement in 2009.

In 2022, Justice Scott made a final order requiring the husband pay child support for the parties’ youngest child, and spousal support to the wife. The total amount of his support payments was $3,848 to be paid through the Family Responsibility Office (FRO). In 2023, Justice Walters made a second final order, terminating child support as the child had finished his post secondary education. However, from the date of the second order to the present date, the husband had continued to make the full $3,848 payment. FRO paid the spousal support share to the wife and held onto the rest, which totalled more than $19,000.

Analysis

The main issue the court in Cameron v. Cameron had to determine was the appropriate quantum and duration of support to the wife.

The husband argued that spousal should terminate as of December 31, 2024, as he will have been paying support for 16 years at that point. The husband argued this duration to be fair as he believed the parties cohabited for a total of 15.5 years.

In response, the wife argued that spousal support should not terminate because she was disabled and unable to earn an income. Further, she argued that the period of cohabitation was actually closer to 19 years.

To address this issue, the court first noted the general rule that the duration of spousal support payments should not exceed the length of time in which the parties cohabitate in a domestic relationship. However, there are exceptions to this rule including the age and health of both parties, and the reasonableness of the efforts made by the recipient to obtain employment.

In this case, the court noted that the wife had always been dependent on the husband for support from the date of their marriage to the date of separation. While the husband worked full time, the wife was a stay at home mom and home schooled all four children until they began attending high school.

Further, while the wife had been unemployed since the date of separation, this was largely due to injuries she sustained in a serious car accident. In determining entitlement to support, the court referenced previous case law that has acknowledged that a disability arising after marriage is a factor.

Given these circumstances, the court determined it was fair and just that spousal support continue for a period that was equal to the total amount of time the parties cohabited. In this case, that total was 18 years and 4 months.

Regarding the amount, the court determined that the number should increase as of January 1, 2023, given that the husband’s income had substantially increased in 2022.

As support had retroactively increased, the husband was therefore in arrears. To satisfy the arrears, the court ordered that the husband’s previous overpayments to FRO, which were being withheld from the wife, would be forthwith paid.

The court also discussed previous Section 7 expenses for three of the parties’ children. The wife wanted compensation for the expenses she covered for the children’s education.

For two children, the court determined that the wife did not provide evidence that proved she made contributions directly to the children’s education expenses.

For the parties’ youngest child, the wife provided evidence that she contributed to a RESP, and the court therefore ordered the husband to pay for his share of the education expenses.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the court in Cameron v. Cameron agreed with the wife that spousal support payments should increase and continue. Over the course of their marriage, the wife had relied on the husband for support while she cared for the parties’ children. Post-separation, the wife has been unable to find meaningful work due to disability. Thus, the court determined that ordering support for a duration that matched the parties’ period of cohabitation was fair and just.