November 5, 2026
Recent Judgments
One of the most readily recognizable bases for spousal support is a compensatory claim. In Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 SCR 813, one of the leading cases on spousal supportin Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada wrote:
The most significant economic consequence of marriage or marriage breakdown, however, usually arises from the birth of children. This generally requires that the wife cut back on her paid labour force participation in order to care for the children, an arrangement which jeopardizes her ability to ensure her own income security and independent economic well being. In such situations, spousal support may be a way to compensate such economic disadvantage.
Compensatory claims often arise from what family lawyers and courts describe as “traditional” marriages. The marriage in a recent decision of the BC Supreme Court, Kerkhoven v. Kerkhoven, 2026 BCSC 1896, was one of these kinds of marriages.
During the parties’ 23-year marriage, Ms. Kerkhoven was responsible for almost all of the childcare for their two children. Mr. Kerkhoven saw the children only rarely—at lunchtime and in the evenings. Ms. Kerkhoven also performed the household work, including cooking, cleaning, and maintaining the home. These are hallmarks of a “traditional” marriage.
Despite the roles and responsibilities Ms. Kerkhoven assumed during the marriage, the BC Supreme Court found that she was not entitled to spousal support. This blog post examines why.
The Test for Compensatory Support
To understand the Court’s decision in Kerkhoven, it is helpful to begin with the objectives of spousal support undersection 15.2 the Divorce Act, which provides that a spousal support order should:
(a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown;
(b) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for thesupport of any child of themarriage;
(c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of themarriage; and
(d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable time.
Compensatory support is based on the principle that spouses remain economically autonomous and should receive compensation for losses caused by the marriage or its breakdown that they would not otherwisehave suffered. Importantly, the analysis is focused on economic and financial consequences.
In a so-called traditional marriage, one spouse may suffer an economic disadvantage because of the roles assumed during the relationship, while the other spouse may receive a corresponding economic advantage.
In Kerkhoven, however, the Court found that Ms. Kerkhoven was not economically disadvantaged by the marriage, notwithstanding the roles she had assumed.
The parties operated a 300-acre dairy farm, which was also their principal asset. In addition to caring for the children and managing the household, Ms. Kerkhoven performed substantial farm labour, including fence work, locatinglost cattle, mowing hundreds of acres, transporting cattle, scraping manure,and stacking hay. After training at the University of the Fraser Valley and completinga six-month apprenticeship, she also acted as the farm’s bookkeeper for nineyears. She was also responsible for prepared the paperwork required to employ temporary foreign workers, and helping them settle in Canada, driving them to medical appointments and managing their payroll and all remittances.
The Court found that these contributions neither economically advantaged Mr. Kerkhoven nor economically disadvantaged Ms. Kerkhoven. Instead, they benefited the family and the family business as a whole.
The Court also found that Ms. Kerkhoven had taught equestrian skills for 22 years and had acquired training and experience as a bookkeeper. At trial, she acknowledged that she had not pursued work in either field after separation because she wanted to continue working in the family business.
On these facts, the Court concluded that Ms. Kerkhoven had not established aneconomic disadvantage arising from the marriage or a corresponding economicadvantage to Mr. Kerkhoven.
The Role of Family Violence in Support
The Court found that Ms. Kerkhoven had experienced family violence. She testified about three incidents of physical violence, including one that resulted in Mr. Kerkhoven’s conviction for assault. She also described mental and emotional abuse, often connected to disputes about money, and testified that she remained fearful of Mr. Kerkhoven.
Addressing the significance of family violence to the support analysis, the Court held:
I adopt unreservedly the comments of Justice Schultes that family violence is deplorable and a stain on society, however absent a tort claim it is not a stand-alone basis for compensation. The relevance of this evidence lies only in whether the abusive conduct causes, prolongs or aggravates the need for support.
As deplorable as [Mr. Kerkhoven’s] conduct was, I find that [Ms. Kerkhoven] has failed to prove it had any impact on herability to earn an income either during the marriage or post separation.
The decision is a reminder that spousal support is primarily concerned with economic need and with financial advantages or disadvantages arising from the relationship or its breakdown. Misconduct, however serious, has a limited role unless it causes, prolongs, or aggravates a need for support.
Non-Compensatory Support
The Court also briefly considered non-compensatory, or needs-based, support. This form of support addresses a spouse’s needs after separation and reflects theprinciple that a former spouse may bear responsibility for meeting those needsrather than shifting that burden to the public.
In Kerkhoven, the Court found that Ms. Kerkhoven would receive a substantial sum from the sale of the family business—more than enough to meet her needs and maintain her standard of living. The Court also found no significant disparity between the parties’ standards of living: both continued to live relatively modestly, as they had during the marriage.
Key Takeaways
- A long marriage with a traditional division of labour does not automatically establish entitlement to compensatory support. The claimant must connect those roles to a measurable economic disadvantage or to a corresponding economic advantage enjoyed by the other spouse.
- Unpaid domestic work and contributions to a family business are important, but the Court will considerthe economic effect of those contributions in context—including the skills andwork experience acquired during the relationship and the claimant’s post-separationemployment choices.
- Family violence is not, by itself, a basis for spousal support. It becomes relevant to support where the evidence shows that the abuse caused, prolonged, or aggravated an economic need or impaired the claimant’s ability to earn income.
- Non-compensatory support remains a separate basis for entitlement, but significant property received onseparation and similar post-separation standards of living may weigh against afinding of need.
- Kerkhoven underscores that entitlement to spousal support is fact-specific. Labels such as “traditional marriage” may describe the parties’ roles, but they do not replace evidence of the financial consequences of those roles.