Of all the different areas of family law, the one topic that remains confusing to spouses and lawyers following separation is the ending date of spousal support after a long term marriage. The decision of Choquette v. Choquette, 2018 ONSC 1435 released by Justice Hood on March 1, 2018 quickly raised eyebrows. How could a judge rule that a man worth $14 million and have historical earnings of about $1 million per year be granted an order terminating spousal support to his wife and mother of two children who has little income. Well, that is exactly what happened. But the devil is in the details.
In Choquette, the parties were married in 1979 and separated 15 years later in 1994 when their boys were 11 and 4 years old. At the time of their separation, they were both 39 years old. They both had the exact same education and CMA designations, both having studied business in university. At separation, their assets were equally divided and had matching net worths. During marriage, the husband was earning a high income, while the wife was a stay at home mother.
At the time of their original separation, the parties were embroiled in litigation which then led to a trial over the issues of custody, child support and spousal support. At that trial, the judge described the wife as articulate, intelligent and well-educated, with proven marketable skills at the management level. Of most significance, the trial judge stated “she does not intend to sit about doing nothing, and I accept her statement…I have no doubt that she can and will return to the workplace and move relatively quickly towards self-sufficiency.” The decision by the trial judge was designed to get the wife back to work and become self-sufficient. That was in 1996. In this case, the father had custody of the boys.
At the end of that trial, the judge granted the wife spousal support of $4,750 per month – with no end date. Both parties appealed that judgment to the Court of Appeal. The husband was asking for either a time-limited order, a review order or a drop down order – all to cause the wife to become self-sufficient within a reasonable period of time.
A time-limited order would have ended all support obligations at a fixed date. A review order would have returned the case back to court at a fixed time to allow a judge to review again support entitlement, duration of support and the quantum of support – on the facts as they existed on the return date. This would be without the extra hurdle of proving a ‘material change in circumstances’. The husband alternatively asked the appellate court for a drop down order, lowering monthly support over time from $4,750 to $2,350 to nil.
The husband’s visit to the Court of Appeal in 1998 did not produce results for him. The court stated that “the husband’s concerns that the wife may not become self-sufficient as quickly as anticipated by the trial judge are better dealt with on a variation application brought in that eventuality.” That was the last time the Choquette family came to court for spousal support. The husband continued to pay the court ordered spousal support for the next 20 years. Mr. Choquette never sought child support or any contribution towards the children’s expenses. He did not return to court. He only did so after receiving a letter from counsel for the wife in 2015 seeking an increase in spousal support. Following receipt of this letter, the husband brought his motion to terminate spousal support. The wife counter-claimed for $15,000 per month in spousal support.
As for the wife’s return to work, the trial judge found that she never made any attempt to do so. She provided many excuses, none of which were found to be credible.
In the end, the trial judge terminated spousal support and dismissed the wife’s counter-claim, with costs payable to the husband.
The focus of this trial was the purpose of spousal support under section 15(7) of the Divorce Act. On the one side, a spouse’s economic disadvantage stemming from the marriage or separation must be compensated for by spousal support. But on the other side, the payment of spousal support should promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time. The trial judge had to reconcile these competing purposes and decide if the wife had a continuous entitlement to spousal support.
In the Choquette case, the parties were 39 when they separated and were 62 at trial. Mr. Choquette raised their two boys with no support from their mother. Altogether, he paid 22 years of spousal support. In that time, Mrs. Choquette did not take active steps to secure full time employment and meet her statutory obligation to become self-sustaining.
The trial judge found that the husband met his statutory obligation to his wife of 15 years and terminated spousal support. This is despite the headline news that “wealthy man not required to support his needy wife”. The devil is in the details.
Editorial Note: Originally published in 2018, this article examines Choquette v. Choquette, a pivotal case on the duration and purpose of spousal support. While legal practice continues to evolve—including recent discussions about gender equity, aging spouses, and long-term financial dependency—this case still offers essential insights into how Canadian courts weigh self-sufficiency against ongoing support. The lesson remains: the outcome of spousal support disputes depends deeply on facts, history, and each party’s conduct after separation.
Steve Benmor, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M. (Family Law), C.S., Cert.F.Med., C.Arb., FDRP PC, is the founder and principal lawyer of Benmor Family Law Group, a boutique matrimonial law firm in downtown Toronto. He is a Certified Specialist in Family Law, a Certified Specialist in Parenting Coordination and was admitted as a Fellow to the prestigious International Academy of Family Lawyers. Steve is regularly retained as a Divorce Mediator/Arbitrator and Parenting Coordinator. Steve uses his 30 years of in-depth knowledge of family law, court-room experience and expert problem-solving skills in Divorce Mediation/Arbitration to help spouses reach fair, fast and cooperative divorce settlements without the financial losses, emotional costs and lengthy delays from divorce court.
Share this article on: