When it comes to spousal support payments in Ontario, one common question remains relevant: Does the paying spouse have any say over how the recipient spends that support money?
Historically, the answer has consistently been “no,” a principle established in the foundational case Reniewick v. Reniewick (1985). In that case, the court clearly held that once support payments are made, the receiving spouse retains full discretion in using the funds as they see fit. As the court famously stated, the use of support money by the recipient is generally not subject to scrutiny by the court or the paying spouse.
However, Ontario family law has evolved significantly since that 1985 decision. Today, courts utilize the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) extensively. While not legally binding, these guidelines provide a structured approach to determining fair support amounts and durations, emphasizing predictability and consistency in outcomes.
Moreover, the question of how new relationships affect ongoing spousal support obligations has become nuanced. Modern courts recognize that while entering a new relationship or cohabiting can represent a material change in circumstances, such changes do not automatically end spousal support obligations. Rather, the courts examine the financial interdependence and the economic benefits the recipient spouse derives from the new relationship. Support modifications or terminations require clear evidence of significant changes to the recipient spouse’s financial circumstances.
Recent case law highlights this nuanced approach. Courts look at various factors, including the length and financial nature of any new relationship, and the recipient’s ongoing financial independence, before adjusting spousal support payments.
In summary, while Ontario law continues to uphold the recipient spouse’s autonomy in spending spousal support payments, current guidelines and case law demonstrate a more structured approach to adjustments based on life changes such as new relationships or cohabitation.
This evolution reflects Ontario’s aim to balance fairness and flexibility within family law, adapting to changing societal norms and individual circumstances.
Cases:
Reniewick v. Reniewick, 1985 CanLII 1822 (ON CJ)
This blog has been updated from an original FamilyLLB.com blog posted in 2015.
