Married in 2000, separated in 2020, after a traditional division of roles: his career came first, while she worked part-time in a job that fit their daughter’s needs. In 2024, a first judgment awarded the former wife spousal support while clearly telling her to increase her income. Two years later, the Quebec Superior Court reduces the support and sets an end date. A ruling that illustrates a delicate question: how far must one former spouse go in supporting the other?
Is spousal support for life? The question comes up often in consultations, on both sides of the table. Canadian law gives a nuanced answer: support is neither automatically permanent nor automatically time-limited. Everything depends on the length of the relationship, the roles each spouse played, each person’s current situation and the efforts made to become self-sufficient. The judgment in Droit de la famille — 261492 (2026 QCCS 3472), delivered on August 18, 2026 by Justice Bruno Guillot-Hurtubise of the Quebec Superior Court (District of Montreal), offers a concrete illustration. Worth noting: both former spouses represented themselves.
The facts: a traditional marriage and a first judgment in 2024
The parties met in 1997, began living together in 1998 and married in September 2000. Their daughter, born in 1999, is now financially independent. At the time of the judgment, he is 54 and she is 49. She left the family home in August 2020, and divorce proceedings were filed in September 2021. An interim order then granted her support of $500 a month.
On September 30, 2024, Justice Pascale Nolin ruled on the financial issues of the divorce. She ordered him to pay her $52,832 as her share of the family patrimony (the pool of family assets that Quebec law divides equally between spouses) and $1,500 for her share of the “acquests” (property accumulated under Quebec’s default matrimonial regime). On support, she found that the parties had lived together for about twenty-two years with a traditional division of responsibilities: he, a full-time manager, was the main breadwinner, while she, a special education technician working with autistic children, worked about 30 hours a week, which allowed her to care for their daughter, particularly during school holidays. According to the judge, this arrangement furthered his career and limited her earnings, creating economic dependency.
Justice Nolin set support at $792 a month for the period from October 2021 to January 2023, then kept it at $500 a month from February 2023, since he had lost his job in December 2022. She added a clear warning, however: it was “undeniable” that the former wife had to try to increase her income during the summer, when she has two months off, and to increase her working hours. She also ordered the parties to exchange their tax returns every year.
The new application: cancel the support
The former husband returned to court to have the support cancelled. He cited a significant drop in income due to health problems and a job change, heavy debt, and argued that his former wife was living more comfortably than she claimed: undeclared income, help from successive partners, inflated expenses, travel and substantial savings.
She asked that the support be maintained. She explained that she had followed the first judgment’s recommendation by adding about ten hours of work a month, that the nature of her job limits her ability to do more, that she now lives alone and that her trips were paid for from her savings. She added that he had left a very well-paid job and that, if necessary, income should be imputed to him based on his true earning capacity.
The rules: varying support is not a new trial
For divorced spouses, spousal support is governed by the federal Divorce Act. Under section 17, a court may vary, suspend or cancel a support order, but only if there has been a change in the means, needs or other circumstances of either former spouse since the last order.
The analysis has two steps. First, the person seeking the variation must prove a material and unforeseen change: one that, had it been known when the first judgment was made, would likely have led to a different result. Second, if that change is established, the court reassesses the situation in light of the Act’s objectives: recognizing the economic advantages and disadvantages arising from the marriage and its breakdown, relieving economic hardship caused by the breakdown and, as far as practicable, promoting each spouse’s economic self-sufficiency within a reasonable period. None of these objectives takes precedence over the others.
The court may also set a time limit, that is, a date on which support will end. According to the Quebec Court of Appeal, a time limit may be justified when the support recipient is not making sufficient efforts to become self-sufficient, or when their financial difficulties stem from personal choices. It must, however, rest on real and concrete circumstances: the mere passage of time since separation is not enough.
The decision: $400 a month until August 31, 2029
Justice Guillot-Hurtubise saw no clearly exaggerated needs in the former wife’s budget. But he found that she had made no serious efforts to increase her income as Justice Nolin had required, whether during the school year or over the summer, and he was not persuaded that she intended to do so. The ten extra hours a month, including supervising students at lunchtime, fell short of the expectations set in 2024.
The court also found that the former husband’s situation had deteriorated. His income was $40,700 in 2023, $42,600 in 2024 and $52,000 in 2025, and he expects to earn $73,000 in 2026. A diagnosis forces him to scale back his work: still employed by large grocery chains, he can no longer hold a manager (director) position and must limit himself to assistant manager, working 42-hour weeks instead of 50. He has taken on nearly $60,000 in debt since 2024. For her part, she reports annual income of $39,331 and assets of $57,000, including $50,000 in a tax-free savings account (TFSA).
The core of the reasoning concerns her career choice. In the judge’s view, that choice is now well established and no longer depends on the relationship. He writes (our translation): “It is regrettable that such a noble and demanding profession is not paid at its fair value, but it is not up to [the former husband] to make up indefinitely for what essentially falls under the pay conditions offered by [the former wife’s] employer.” He adds that the support obligation between former spouses does not indefinitely guarantee one spouse’s financial situation, regardless of that spouse’s own capacity to work. She is healthy and able to work, and the evidence does not reveal an economic interdependence that would justify support for an indefinite period.
The result: support is reduced to $400 a month from the date of judgment until August 31, 2029, indexed every January 1. Revenu Québec, which collects support payments in Quebec, must inform the parties of any arrears, which he will have to repay if applicable. No costs are awarded.
Why this decision stands out
The decision is consistent on its own terms: the first judgment had warned the former wife, in no uncertain terms, that she needed to increase her income. She did not do so convincingly, while his situation was deteriorating. The three-year period gives her time to adjust. For support recipients, the message is crystal clear: a judicial warning is not a suggestion.
But the decision also raises a fundamental question on which practitioners disagree. Since the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in Moge v. Moge (1992), it has been recognized that spousal support can serve a compensatory purpose: to make up for the economic disadvantage suffered by a spouse who put their career on hold for the family. That disadvantage does not necessarily fade with time. After more than twenty years in a part-time job chosen around the family’s needs, a 49-year-old cannot easily regain the earnings path she might otherwise have had. One may therefore ask whether calling that choice a “personal preference,” more than twenty years after it was made in the family’s interest, understates its marital origin. The judge partly answers this by noting that she has received support since 2021 and did not make the efforts required of her, but the debate remains wide open for other cases where the recipient will have made those efforts.
Finally, the decision is a reminder that the law takes real ability to pay into account. Support is not only about needs: a payor whose health is declining and who is going into debt to pay can obtain an adjustment, provided they prove it.
Key takeaways
If you receive support: when a judgment asks you to increase your income, take it seriously and document your efforts (job applications, offers received, summer work, training). The next time you are in court, that evidence will make the difference.
If you pay support: a significant change in your situation (health, employment, income) can justify an application to vary, but it must be proven with reliable documents: medical reports, pay stubs, tax returns. The obligation to exchange tax returns every year is a valuable tool for keeping track of the other party’s situation.
A time limit is never automatic. It must rest on concrete facts, such as a lack of effort toward self-sufficiency, not merely on the passage of time.
Don’t face such a consequential case alone. Both parties represented themselves here. Even a one-time legal consultation helps you focus on the right arguments and the right evidence, whether you are seeking or opposing a variation.
Related reading
This column is published for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Because every situation is unique, you should consult a lawyer for advice tailored to your own case. Feel free to contact Virtulex avocats to discuss your situation.
William Desrochers, Attorney, Virtulex avocats — www.virtulexavocats.com
Reference: Droit de la famille — 261492, 2026 QCCS 3472, Quebec Superior Court, District of Montreal, the Honourable Bruno Guillot-Hurtubise, J.S.C., August 18, 2026 — read the judgment on CanLII (in French).
Other decision mentioned: Moge v. Moge, 1992 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1992] 3 SCR 813.
