B.C. court of appeal upholds order for the husband’s term of paying spousal support to be longer that his actual marriage

In Zandbergen v. Craig, 2024 BCCA 278, a husband lost the argument that his spousal support payments should be reduced or terminated on the basis that he had paid the monthly dollar amount and the required years of spousal support that are set out in the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines. The husband appealed to the B.C. court of appeal. At the court of appeal, the husband continued to push the argument that a material change had occurred, by virtue of the fact that he had met the stipulated guidelines, and that the issue of spousal support should be reopened for a possible reduction or termination.

The court dismissed the assertion that meeting the duration and quantum set out by the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines qualified as a material change.  

Previous rulings that awarded the wife indefinite spousal support were based on explicit determinations that it was highly unlikely that the wife would be able to attain employment and therefore self sufficiency. The court of appeal noted that the most recent decision in 2017 had already denied the husband's plea to establish a definitive end-date for support. On this basis, the 2017 order ought to be interpreted as acknowledging that the husband should pay spousal support for a period that was longer than the couple’s actual relationship. The husband’s appeal consequently failed to present any grounds that had not previously been considered during the issuance of past orders. 

The court of appeal determined that there was no error in the trial judge's decision to order the maximum amount of support and found that the wife's financial circumstances had worsened and her prospects for achieving self-sufficiency had not improved since the previous order.