In A.R. v. M.E.R., 2026 BCSC 1359, Justice Laurie considered whether a spousal support recipient had become self-sufficient enough to justify terminating support. The respondent sought to end his spousal support obligation on review, arguing that the claimant had achieved self-sufficiency since the original support order was made in December 2022.
Justice Laurie disagreed. She found that the claimant had not become self-sufficient and that the respondent’s conduct had significantly affected her ability to do so. In particular, Justice Laurie found that the respondent’s “relentless litigation” since December 2022 had interfered with the claimant’s employment, income, and well-being.
Background
The parties married in 2014 and separated in 2017 after a three-year marriage. They were divorced in 2020. Following a trial in February and March 2022, Justice Verhoeven issued a final order on December 1, 2022, requiring the respondent to pay spousal support to the claimant indefinitely, with an option to review support after July 2025 (the “Verhoeven Order”).
That Verhoeven Order became the starting point for further litigation by the respondent.
The Respondent’s “Relentless Litigation”
The respondent appealed the Verhoeven Order. The appeal was heard by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in June 2023 and dismissed in September 2023. The respondent then sought leave to appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada. Leave was denied in February 2024.
The respondent also brought multiple applications to vary the Verhoeven Order.
In July 2023, he applied to vary the Verhoeven Order and retroactively reduce spousal support and review support at an earlier date. That application was heard by Justice Jones in October 2023 and June 2024. In December 2023, the parties entered into a consent order that resolved part of the respondent’s application by retroactively reducing spousal support. The remainder of the application was dismissed in 2025.
In February 2024, the respondent brought an application to vary the Verhoeven Order and terminate spousal support. His application was heard by Justice Edelmann in June 2024 and dismissed in August 2024.
Finally, in May 2025, the respondent brought the review application that led to Justice Laurie’s decision. The hearings took place in September 2025 and January 2026.
The Impact on the Claimant’s Self-Sufficiency
Justice Laurie found that the respondent’s repeated litigation had a real impact on the claimant’s ability to become self-sufficient. The litigation required her to miss work to attend court on multiple occasions, which affected both her income and her performance at work. It also negatively affected her mental health and emotional well-being. As a result, Justice Laurie concluded that the claimant had not achieved self-sufficiency and continued to be entitled to spousal support.
Key Takeaway
This case shows that a support recipient’s progress toward economic self-sufficiency must be assessed in context. Courts may consider the impact of ongoing litigation on a recipient’s employment, income, and well-being.
The decision is also a reminder that repeated applications can have consequences beyond costs. In this case, the respondent’s “relentless litigation” was found to be directly relevant to the claimant’s ongoing need for spousal support.
If you require additional information or further assistance, please contact Rosemary Gallo and Monica Wong.
Subscribe to RSS Feed