There are always many disputes after the breakdown of marriage between the two parties, such as custody and spousal support. The issue of spousal support often generates significant controversy and discussion. The new Divorce Act, which was enacted in 1985 and still remain effective today, is the federal Act that governs divorce including the order of spousal support in Canada (Boyd, 2015). This essay will discuss how the courts views the issue of spousal support in Lee v Lee (2014), a family law case that was held in British Columbia, as well as the reasons why I agree with the judicial application of the law.
Lee v Lee (2014) is a family law case which the former husband appeal from the apportionment of family assets and the dismissal of …show more content…
Lee did not suffer from marked decline of living standard arising from marriage breakdown since he had lived with a new partner who had similar economic condition as his ex-wife. Section 15.2(6)(a) of the Divorce Act provides the objective of spousal support, that the provision of spousal support should recognize the economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses caused by the marriage or the divorce. Section 15.2(6)(c) also stated that spousal support should relieve the economic hardship of the spouse due to divorce. In this circumstance, Mr. Lee did not really encounter financial disadvantages or even hardship arising from the marriage breakdown, as he could still live in a house that was similar to his ex-wife in terms of size and location. Therefore, Mr. Lee should not be granted for permanent spousal support. Secondly, the reasons for income disparity between the parties were not due to the marriage or the breakdown itself. During the marriage, Ms. Lee did not take advantages of Mr. Lee in getting the high-paid job, instead, it was evident that he chose to be underemployed and refused to get higher education voluntarily. It was obvious that the significant income gap between the parties was due to Mr. Lee reluctant in exploring other job and/or increasing his working hours. In addition, Sections 15.2(6)(d) and 17(7)(d) of Divorce Act set out an expectation of spousal support: promoting self-sufficiency “within a reasonable period of time”. It means the …show more content…
In Lee v Lee (2014) where significant income disparity between both parties and the reverse of traditional gender role existed, it is expected that more debates and discussions related to spousal support would be created in Canada especially British Columbia.
References
Boyd, N. (2015) Canadian Law: An Introduction. (6th) Toronto, Canada: Nelson Education.
Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), s. 15.2(6)(a)
Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), s. 15.2(6)(c)
Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), s. 15.2(6)(d)
Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), s. 17(7)(d)
Lee v. Lee [2014] B.C.J. No.
Lee v Lee (2014) is a family law case which the former husband appeal from the apportionment of family assets and the dismissal of …show more content…
Lee did not suffer from marked decline of living standard arising from marriage breakdown since he had lived with a new partner who had similar economic condition as his ex-wife. Section 15.2(6)(a) of the Divorce Act provides the objective of spousal support, that the provision of spousal support should recognize the economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses caused by the marriage or the divorce. Section 15.2(6)(c) also stated that spousal support should relieve the economic hardship of the spouse due to divorce. In this circumstance, Mr. Lee did not really encounter financial disadvantages or even hardship arising from the marriage breakdown, as he could still live in a house that was similar to his ex-wife in terms of size and location. Therefore, Mr. Lee should not be granted for permanent spousal support. Secondly, the reasons for income disparity between the parties were not due to the marriage or the breakdown itself. During the marriage, Ms. Lee did not take advantages of Mr. Lee in getting the high-paid job, instead, it was evident that he chose to be underemployed and refused to get higher education voluntarily. It was obvious that the significant income gap between the parties was due to Mr. Lee reluctant in exploring other job and/or increasing his working hours. In addition, Sections 15.2(6)(d) and 17(7)(d) of Divorce Act set out an expectation of spousal support: promoting self-sufficiency “within a reasonable period of time”. It means the …show more content…
In Lee v Lee (2014) where significant income disparity between both parties and the reverse of traditional gender role existed, it is expected that more debates and discussions related to spousal support would be created in Canada especially British Columbia.
References
Boyd, N. (2015) Canadian Law: An Introduction. (6th) Toronto, Canada: Nelson Education.
Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), s. 15.2(6)(a)
Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), s. 15.2(6)(c)
Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), s. 15.2(6)(d)
Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), s. 17(7)(d)
Lee v. Lee [2014] B.C.J. No.