Spousal support in Canada does not rest on a single idea. It grew out of a recognition that a marriage or common-law relationship is an economic partnership, and that when the partnership ends the financial effects rarely fall evenly on both people. Two Supreme Court of Canada decisions built the modern framework, and both are still applied in Ontario every day.
Moge v. Moge (1992): the compensatory basis
Moge established the compensatory foundation for support. The Court recognised that a relationship produces economic advantages and disadvantages, and that these should be shared fairly when it breaks down. The classic example is a spouse who steps back from paid work — or turns down promotions and moves — to raise children or to support the other spouse's career. That spouse may finish the relationship with lower earning power, while the other finishes with higher earning power built partly on that support.
Moge treated this as a real economic loss flowing from the roles the couple chose, not as charity. Support, on this view, is compensation for advantages conferred and disadvantages suffered because of the marriage and its end.
Bracklow v. Bracklow (1999): the non-compensatory basis
Bracklow recognised that compensation is not the only reason support may be owed. Some claims are needs-based (non-compensatory): support may be appropriate because one spouse is in genuine need arising from the relationship, even without a clear compensatory story — for instance, where illness or age leaves a spouse unable to become self-sufficient after a long relationship. The Court also acknowledged a contractual basis, where the parties themselves agreed to support.
Together, Moge and Bracklow give three possible foundations for entitlement: compensatory, non-compensatory (need), and contractual. A single case can involve more than one.
The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines
Once entitlement is established, the next question is how much and for how long. Most Ontario courts turn to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG). The SSAG are informal and not law — they were not enacted by any legislature and no one is bound to follow the ranges. But they are widely used to produce a consistent range for amount and duration based on incomes, the length of the relationship, and whether child support is also being paid.
It is important to keep the two questions separate. The SSAG do not decide whether support is owed at all; they only help estimate quantum once entitlement is found. A court that departs from the ranges is usually expected to explain why.
What tends to drive the outcome
- The length of the relationship — longer relationships generally support longer or indefinite awards.
- The roles the couple adopted, and any resulting loss of earning capacity.
- Each person's current and potential income.
- Whether child support is being paid, which interacts with the spousal-support calculation.
- Any agreement the couple made about support.
For education only. Entitlement, amount, and duration are highly fact-specific, and the SSAG are guidance rather than a binding formula.
This article is general information for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. For advice on your situation, book a consultation.