Moge+c.+Moge

· When they separated she was initially given $150 per month. She got laid off and this amount was raised to $400. · Continued to be paid for 9 years after marriage. Husband re-married after 4 years · Husband made motion to terminate support, based on the belief his ex-wife had "time to become financially independent" and that he had supported her "as long as he could be required to do so". Trial History: Trial judge set aside order for spousal support __based on individualism__. The lower court believed this was enough time for her to achieve economic independence. Court of Appeal set aside the judgment and ordered $150/month for an indefinite period. || > > Gonthier and McLachlin:
 * ======== ||
 * Jurisdiction || SCC 1992 ||
 * Facts || · Married and had long traditional marriage. Have three kids. During marriage she stayed home and worked nights as maintenance person. Had very few special skills or training or education.
 * Issues || Is the ex-wife entitled to ongoing support for an indefinite period of time or should spousal support be terminated? ||
 * Holding || Appeal dismissed. Ex-wife ordered $150 in spousal support indefinitely. ||
 * Ratio || **L’H-D**
 * Proper analysis = determination of support on basis of principles embodied in the new divorce act. In particular s.15.2.
 * Subsection (6) is heart of the section.
 * I__ndividualism and independence, central under trilogy of //Pelech, Caron, and Richardson//, are not primordial anymore__. Under old act, focus on independence and individualism of the wife when granting variations in spousal support orders resulted (in part) in feminization of poverty.
 * The principles articulated in the trilogy were not meant to extend to all applications of relief between spouses. The courts should not be prevented from using judicial discretion when applying the laws set down by legislature, so that they can accommodate a range of economic variables faced on marriage breakdown.
 * __Each of the 4 objectives set out in s.17(7) (i.e., recognizing economic disadvantage, apportioning burden of child care, relieving economic hardship and promoting economic self-sufficiency) bears equal weight, importance__.
 * The goal of promoting economic independence, in some cases, may be impossible to achieve. In these cases, this objective should not be imposed on the parties. To hold that self-sufficiency is the only goal applicable in determinations of spousal support would be inconsistent with proper principles of statutory interpretation and the social context in which support orders are made.
 * Divorce statutes were not meant to penalize women financially. Spousal support is meant to alleviate economic consequences of both parties, upon breakdown of marriage - it is not gendered. However, studies indicate that women face greater hardships resulting from breakup, in part from the division of labour within the institution and the often the invisible labour done by the woman within the home.
 * __The Act now recognizes the value of work done within the home__. In determining the amount of spousal support, the court must consider the career advantages a spouse may have accrued because they did not need to share in the domestic responsibilities.
 * The financial consequences of a marriage breakdown extend well beyond the loss of future earnings or losses related to care of children. "The general economic impact of divorce on women is a phenomenon the existence of which cannot be questioned and should be amenable to judicial notice." Judges should be aware of the social reality when engaging in an examination of the objectives of the Act. The must consider this reality along with the objective necessary background information in each application.
 * The objective of independence (i.e., self-sufficiency) will not work in this case. The trial judge erred in engaging in an analysis premised on this principle. The judge should have considered the disparity between the earning ability of each spouse and the fact that the wife was disadvantaged by the marriage.
 * Cannot expect Mrs. Moge to have gotten economic self-sufficiency at the age of 50-something, after having been in the home for so long. Her earning potential had been diminished as a result of the marriage.
 * In applying s.17(7), judges must take a common sense approach. The burden of proving that one of the spouses faces economic disadvantage arising from the marriage is on the spouse requesting support. Nevertheless, where there is no evidence to the contrary, the court may infer that a woman faces hardship caused by the marriage.
 * Detailed quantification and expert evidence is unnecessary for judges to get an accurate picture of whether a spouse gained advantages of disadvantages resulting from the marriage under s. 17(7)(a). ||