SCOC Rules Spousal Support Must Continue
Posted June 21, 2006 12:00 pm.
This article is more than 5 years old.
The country’s highest court has ordered a man to continue paying spousal support to his ex-wife after he left her for another woman.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that although misconduct alone isn’t a reason to grant support to a wronged spouse, the resulting emotional consequences can be factored into a judge’s decision.
“Misconduct, as such, is off the table as a relevant consideration,” wrote Justice Ian Binnie citing the 1985 Divorce Act. “There is, of course, a distinction between the emotional consequences of misconduct and the misconduct itself … The consequences are not rendered irrelevant because of their genesis in the other spouse’s misconduct.”
Gary Leskun was appealing previous lower court rulings that upheld his $2,250 monthly payments to ex-wife Sherry Leskun on the grounds that the now 59-year-old woman was too bitter to work because of her husband’s infidelity.
“Her life is this litigation,” the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled in 2004.
The Vancouver couple was married for 20 years and had a child together when Gary Leskun left her to marry another woman in 1998. He’d gone to Chicago in the spring of that year after accepting a job offer. In September he returned to inform her that he’d met another woman and was planning to marry her.
In addition to their daughter, Sherry has two children from a previous relationship.
Leskun appealed to the Supreme Court that his ex-wife’s attitude shouldn’t be rewarded unless the court wanted other embittered partners to come forward with their own cases.
His lawyer, Lorne MacLean, said the impact of the SCOC decision will largely depend on how lower courts interpret it.
“It remains to be seen if misconduct can somehow come in through the consequences argument, when it’s not allowed to be considered under the Divorce Act,” MacLean said outside court.
The ruling means not only must Leskun continue to pay his ex-wife $2,250 a month in support, he also owes her back payments dating to March 2003 when he first began fighting to have the support stopped.
