R.L. v. M.F.: ONCA Reframes Entitlement Beyond Imputation

R.L. v. M.F., 2025 ONCA 595, is a helpful appellate decision for Ontario family law practitioners dealing with high-income spouses, dual-career families, and spousal support where both parties earn substantial incomes. The Court of Appeal dismissed the husband’s appeal from a trial judgment that ordered significant ongoing spousal support and prejudgment interest on equalization.

The decision confirms:

• The structure of entitlement analysis under s.15.2 of the Divorce Act;
• The role of economic advantage and compensatory support where a spouse’s caregiving role facilitates the other’s career;
• The proper use of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) and Net Disposable Income (NDI); and
• The approach to post-separation income increases and prejudgment interest on equalization.

Background

The parties began cohabiting in 2005, married in 2006, and separated in February 2020. They have two daughters, now approximately 19 and 17, who have always been in the mother’s primary care; the eldest attends university away from home but otherwise lives with the mother.

Following separation, the parties and children remained in the matrimonial home for over 22 months. The husband paid for all of the household expenses until October 2021, when the parties agreed to interim spousal support of $14,000/month, which he paid thereafter.

Child support was largely resolved before trial. Based on a 2021 income of $2,032,000, the husband agreed to:

• Child support of $24,661/month;
• Retroactive child support of $79,560; and
• Special and extraordinary expenses of $6,627/month.

The remaining financial issues were equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The wife is a respirologist who, since the children’s birth, worked three days per week or on a 60% basis. The trial judge found that while it was reasonable for her to work part-time during the children’s younger years, her continued part-time work was no longer required by their needs once the younger child turned 14 in June 2022. He imputed an income of $550,000 to her.

The husband’s post-separation income was $2,031,822.

The trial judge:

• Found entitlement to both compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support;
• Ordered ongoing spousal support of $20,000/month from January 1, 2023 to August 1, 2032;
• Ordered an equalization payment of $474,744.36, payable from his share of matrimonial home proceeds (para. [8]); and
• Subsequently ordered pre-judgment interest on that equalization amount from the date of separation.

The husband appealed on spousal support (entitlement, quantum, duration, use of post-separation income, and SSAG methodology) and on prejudgment interest.

Standard of Review

The Court of Appeal emphasized the high degree of deference owed to trial judges on support and prejudgment interest:

• Spousal support (entitlement, amount, duration, and sharing of post-separation income) attracts a highly deferential standard; absent material error or error of law, appellate courts should not re-weigh the factors.

“Absent material error, such as a serious misapprehension of the evidence or an error of law, an appellate court is not entitled to overturn a support order simply because it would have made a different decision or balanced the factors differently… In Johanson v. Hinde, 2016 ONCA 430, W.D.F.L. 4103, at para. 1, this court explained the rationale behind the particular deference owed to factual findings of trial judges in family law litigation: “The deferential standard of review of decisions of trial judges on questions of fact, and questions of mixed fact and law, is designed to promote finality and to recognize the importance of trial judges’ appreciation of the facts. If anything, this is more accentuated in family litigation.”” [para.21]

• The same applies to exercises of discretion in awarding prejudgment interest.

Entitlement to Spousal Support

Husband’s argument

The husband’s central entitlement argument was that, given the imputed income of $550,000, the wife had suffered “zero economic loss” and therefore should have no compensatory claim. He contended that a finding of imputation necessarily implied she could earn at that level, eliminating any compensatory basis.

Court’s response: economic advantage counts

The Court rejected that approach as inconsistent with s. 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act, which requires consideration of both economic disadvantages and advantages arising from the marriage or its breakdown. Compensatory support is not limited to situations where a spouse has a diminished earning capacity. It also addresses the economic advantages conferred on the payor spouse as a result of the roles assumed during marriage, including unequal caregiving and household responsibilities.

Division of roles and impact on careers

The trial judge found that the parties had adopted a “somewhat traditional division of labour”:

• The husband worked long hours as the primary breadwinner;
• The wife was the primary caregiver, took a one-year leave after each child’s birth, and organized the children’s academics and activities;
• The children spent the “lion’s share” of time with her.

The trial judge found that the wife’s primary caregiving responsibilities and part-time work supported the husband’s career by freeing him to work the long hours required for his professional success. He also concluded that her part-time schedule was no longer justified by the children’s needs once the younger child turned 14, and that she was now capable of full-time work, which supported imputing $550,000 of income to her.

The Court of Appeal accepted this analysis: the wife’s earlier caregiving role supported a compensatory claim, while the current absence of ongoing disadvantage justified income imputation and limited the strength (moderate, not strong) of that claim.

Compensatory and non-compensatory entitlement

The Court confirmed:

• The wife had a moderate compensatory entitlement, based on economic advantages conferred on the husband and her partnership role.
• She also had a non-compensatory (needs-based) entitlement, given the length of the marriage, financial interdependence, and marital standard of living.

The Court confirmed that the trial judge properly treated entitlement as the threshold issue, consistent with Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, and the requirement that there is no presumptive entitlement and that income disparity alone is insufficient to ground support. After determining entitlement, the trial judge turned to quantum and duration using the Divorce Act factors and the SSAG as guidance.

Quantum, SSAG, and NDI

SSAG ranges

The trial judge calculated the SSAG with-child-support ranges, which produced low-, mid-, and high-end figures as well as a 50/50 NDI output. He set support at $20,000/month, which is below the low-end SSAG amount.

As to duration, the SSAG for a 14.5-year marriage suggested a range of 7.25 to 14.5 years. The trial judge fixed support for 9.5 years, a term that falls within the SSAG duration range, though in the lower portion of it. The Court accepted this as a proper, discretionary placement within the range.

NDI as a reasonableness check, not a target

The husband argued that the trial judge erred by making a support order that left him with 56% of the parties’ net disposable income. The Court did not adopt or verify this figure.

Instead, the Court emphasized the governing principle that NDI is not a target, but “an important way to test the reasonableness of different outcomes,” citing Berger v. Berger, 2016 ONCA 884. The Court adopted the guidance that, in child support cases, NDI analysis involves looking not only at NDI percentages but also at the actual NDI dollars in each household, and that ability to pay and the statutory priority of child support shape the boundaries of what is appropriate

The Court further noted that the family’s NDI and the proportionate share of that NDI allocated to each party under the SSAG ranges are factors to be taken into account, with the overarching consideration being fairness in light of all relevant circumstances.

Applying these principles, the Court concluded that a support order leaving the husband with “just a little over half” of the combined NDI was not unreasonable, given the length of the marriage, the allocation of roles, and the broader financial context.

Duration and Use of SSAG Above $350,000

Duration analysis

The trial judge treated this as a mid-range marriage of approximately 14.5 years and noted that the SSAG suggested indefinite support, with a durational range of 7.25 to 14.5 years. His Honour ordered support from January 1, 2023 to August 1, 2032, a term of approximately 9.5 years, which falls within that SSAG duration range .

The Court of Appeal found no error in this approach and accepted the trial judge’s overall discretionary placement of both amount and duration toward the lower end of the SSAG ranges in a high-income case, while noting that the 9.5-year term itself falls within the SSAG duration range. The Court upheld the trial judge’s conclusion that the appropriate placement within the SSAG ranges was in the lower region given the circumstances.

SSAG and high-income payors

Because the husband’s income exceeded the $350,000 SSAG threshold, the Court confirmed that the guidelines could not be applied mechanically. Above that level, the SSAG do not operate as a ceiling, and the trial judge must exercise discretion in selecting the appropriate income input and in determining both the amount and duration of support. The Court explained that, depending on the circumstances, this discretionary analysis may include using the payor’s full actual income.

The Court held that the trial judge properly treated the SSAG as a guidance tool rather than a formula and correctly incorporated the effects of child support and the equalization payment into his individualized, fact-specific assessment.

No mandatory review clause

The husband argued that the spousal support order was flawed because it did not include a review mechanism. The Court rejected this submission, explaining that nothing in the order prevented a future review if a material change in circumstances occurred, consistent with the reasoning applied in Plese v. Herjavec, 2020 ONCA 810.

Post-Separation Income Increases

The husband also argued that the trial judge erred by taking his post-separation income increase into account.

The Court reaffirmed that there is no automatic entitlement to share in post-separation income gains. The basis for entitlement is central: compensatory claims are more likely to support sharing, particularly where the recipient’s contributions or sacrifices during the marriage helped generate or sustain the payor’s later success. The governing test asks whether there is a link or connection between the marriage or cohabitation and the increased income.

The analysis is fact-specific and may include the length of the relationship, the nature and extent of the recipient’s domestic and childcare responsibilities during and after cohabitation, the sacrifices made to support the family or the payor’s career, and whether the payor’s enhanced post-separation income reflects skills, expertise, or opportunities developed during the relationship. Temporal proximity between separation and the increase, as well as the recipient’s ongoing caregiving responsibilities that may allow the payor to continue focusing on career advancement, are also relevant considerations.

Application to the facts

The Court accepted the trial judge’s application of the governing principles on sharing post-separation income and concluded there was no error in using the husband’s current income for support purposes. The trial judge was entitled to consider the wife’s contributions during the relationship, her ongoing caregiving role, and the extent to which the husband’s present income reflected skills and experience developed during the marriage.

The Court emphasized that sharing of post-separation increases is not all-or-nothing. Here, partial sharing was achieved through the trial judge’s placement at the lower end of the post-separation SSAG range, which reduced the degree of sharing.

The Court found no reviewable error in the decision to base support on the husband’s post-separation income or in the manner in which the trial judge calibrated the extent of sharing within the SSAG framework.

Prejudgment Interest on Equalization

The husband also challenged the award of prejudgment interest on the equalization payment, relying on Burgess v. Burgess (1995), O.R. (3d) 547 (C.A.). The Court rejected this argument.

The Court reaffirmed that there is a statutory presumption in favour of prejudgment interest and that, in family property cases, it is ordinarily awarded to reflect money wrongfully withheld and to discourage delay. Although the statute gives courts discretion to depart from this default, the recognized exceptions are narrow and arise only where the payor could not realize on, or make use of, the asset giving rise to the equalization payment before trial.

In this case, the parties had agreed on the equalization amount and agreed it would be paid from the husband’s share of the matrimonial home. There was no objective evidence that payment had to come from that property or that the husband lacked the ability to satisfy the equalization obligation before judgment. The Court therefore found no reason to depart from the general rule and upheld the prejudgment interest award.

Key Practice Points for Ontario Family Lawyers

Imputation does not eliminate entitlement. A high imputed income for the recipient does not negate compensatory or non-compensatory entitlement, which turns on contributions, sacrifices, and role allocation under the Divorce Act, not income alone.

Economic advantage matters under s. 15.2. The Act requires courts to recognize economic advantages and disadvantages arising from the marriage or its breakdown.

NDI is a reasonableness check, not a ceiling. NDI is not a target; it is used to test the fairness of an outcome. A support order leaving the payor with just over half the combined NDI was not unreasonable given the length of the marriage and the allocation of roles.

Post-separation income sharing requires a connection. Sharing depends on a demonstrated link between the marriage and the payor’s increased income, with partial sharing possibly being reflected through placement at the lower end of the post-separation SSAG range.

Prejudgment interest on equalization is presumptive. The exception is narrow and evidence-driven; absent proof that the payor lacked access to assets or the ability to pay before trial, prejudgment interest will generally be awarded.

Let’s continue to elevate the practice of family law in Ontario!

Connect with us on LinkedIn.

Legal Disclaimer: See Privacy Policy

Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog post is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. Consult with a qualified family law attorney for advice regarding your specific situation. Goldhart Mediation & Arbitration is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information presented in this blog.