SiLaw Group Family Lawyers logo

Bracklow v Bracklow ([1999] 1 SCR 420)

Case at a glance
CaseBracklow v Bracklow
Citation[1999] 1 SCR 420
CourtSupreme Court of Canada
Year1999
TopicSpousal Support
Central questionCan I get spousal support if I can't work due to illness?

Key takeaways {#takeaways}

  • Yes — need caused by illness can ground spousal support, even without career sacrifice or a support agreement.
  • The Supreme Court of Canada recognized three bases for support: compensatory, contractual, and non-compensatory.
  • Entitlement is not a blank cheque: amount and duration still depend on all the statutory factors.

Bracklow v Bracklow at a glance {#summary}

Yes, you may. In Bracklow v Bracklow, [1999] 1 SCR 420, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a spouse who cannot work because of illness can be entitled to spousal support based on need alone — even where the marriage caused no career sacrifice and there was no agreement to provide support.

Most people assume spousal support has to be earned: you gave up a career for the family, so you get compensated. Sharon Bracklow gave up nothing — early in the relationship she paid two-thirds of the household expenses. Then bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder and fibromyalgia ended her working life, and the trial judge ruled her ex-husband owed her nothing beyond a voluntary $400 a month ending in 1996. The Supreme Court disagreed, and reshaped who owes what when illness, not sacrifice, creates the need.

The facts {#facts}

Sharon Bracklow, an accountant and data processor, began living with Frank Bracklow, a heavy duty mechanic, in 1985. They married in December 1989. Both had been married before, and Mrs. Bracklow's two children from a previous marriage lived with them.

For the first two years, Mrs. Bracklow paid two-thirds of the household expenses because she earned more. The couple later split expenses equally. When she stopped working, Mr. Bracklow kept the family going. The Court described them as functioning as a family who "looked after each other."

Mrs. Bracklow had health problems from the start of the relationship: migraines, a hysterectomy, and joint pain. In 1989 she developed a migraine that lasted seven months. In October 1991 she was admitted to hospital with psychiatric problems and never worked again. She was hospitalized again from February to April 1992 and July to October 1994, and was diagnosed with bipolar mood disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and fibromyalgia. The trial evidence was that she is unlikely ever to work again.

The couple separated in December 1992 and divorced on February 28, 1995. In total, they were together about seven years. At the time of trial, Mr. Bracklow earned $3,764 per month, had remarried, and shared expenses with his new wife, who was employed. Mrs. Bracklow lived in subsidized housing and received $787 per month in disability benefits.

After separation, Mr. Bracklow agreed to pay $200 a month but stopped almost immediately. Mrs. Bracklow obtained an interim court order for $275 per month, which rose to $400 per month on May 15, 1994.

The trial judge found that her health problems were not caused by the marriage, that she suffered no economic loss because of the marriage or its breakdown, and that there was no agreement — spoken or unspoken — that either spouse would support the other. He held she had no legal entitlement, but let the $400 monthly payments run until September 1, 1996, only because Mr. Bracklow had offered that. The BC Court of Appeal upheld the decision.

The legal issues {#issues}

The Supreme Court framed the question this way at paragraph 1: what duty does a healthy spouse owe a sick one when the marriage collapses?

More precisely (para 13): is a sick or disabled spouse entitled to spousal support when a marriage ends — and can a support obligation exist over and above compensation for losses the marriage caused, or a contract to pay support?

The lower courts had assumed the answer was no: without a contract, only compensation for marriage-related losses could justify support. Since Mrs. Bracklow's illness wasn't caused by the marriage, they reasoned, Mr. Bracklow owed her nothing.

What the court decided {#decision}

A unanimous nine-judge Court, in reasons written by McLachlin J. (as she then was), allowed the appeal.

The Court held that the law recognizes three conceptual grounds for spousal support entitlement (paras 15 and 49):

  1. Compensatory — repaying a spouse for opportunities given up or hardships suffered because of the marriage (the basis explained in Moge v Moge, [1992] 3 SCR 813).
  2. Contractual — an express or implied agreement that one spouse will support the other.
  3. Non-compensatory — support flowing from the marriage relationship itself, based on one spouse's need and the other's ability to pay.

Key steps in the reasoning:

  • During marriage, spouses owe each other a mutual duty of support. Marriage is a joint endeavour, and the starting presumption is interdependence (para 20).
  • On breakdown, that presumption ends. Courts must instead weigh all the objectives and factors in the Divorce Act, s. 15.2(4) and (6), and the provincial statute (paras 21, 35–36). No single objective is paramount.
  • Both federal and provincial statutes accommodate two competing models of marriage — the independent "clean-break" model and the "basic social obligation" (mutual obligation) model — so neither compensation nor need can be the exclusive test (paras 25–32).
  • Nothing in the statutes confines support to compensatory grounds. As the Court put it at para 43, "Need alone may be enough."
  • Where the state would otherwise carry the burden of a former spouse who cannot support herself, the statutes place that burden first on the family, means permitting (paras 31–32, 48).

Applying this, the Court found the trial judge had turned the presumption of mutual support on its head by requiring proof that the couple had positively confirmed a support obligation (para 58). By the end of the relationship, the Bracklows were interdependent: they had evened out expenses, and Mr. Bracklow covered his wife's needs in the early stages of her illness. Divorce therefore left Mrs. Bracklow in economic hardship within the meaning of s. 15.2(6)(c) of the Divorce Act (para 59).

Mrs. Bracklow was eligible for support based on the length of cohabitation, the hardship of the breakdown, her clear need, and Mr. Bracklow's ability to pay (para 60). But the Court sent the amount and duration back to the trial judge — expressly noting that the payments Mr. Bracklow had already made might turn out to have fully discharged what was owed (para 61).

Where the law stands now. Bracklow was decided under the Divorce Act and BC's former Family Relations Act. The Family Relations Act has since been repealed and replaced by the Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25. Spousal support in BC now sits in Part 7, Division 4: s. 160 (duty to support an entitled spouse), s. 161 (objectives, which mirror the Divorce Act objectives the Court applied, including relieving "economic hardship... arising from the breakdown of the relationship"), and s. 162 (amount and duration based on each spouse's "conditions, means, needs and other circumstances"). Divorce Act s. 15.2 remains in force today in the same terms the Court applied — we verified the current text word for word. The Family Law Act also extends spousal support to unmarried couples who qualify as spouses under s. 3. We verified the current statutes directly; we have not independently verified later case-law treatment from official sources for this commentary, so ask your lawyer how courts have applied Bracklow to facts like yours.

Can I get spousal support if I can't work due to illness? {#the-test}

Possibly, yes. Bracklow says you do not have to prove the marriage caused your illness, or that you gave up a career for the family, or that your spouse promised to support you. Need created by illness — combined with your former spouse's ability to pay — can be enough on its own.

Here is how a court approaches it:

  1. Entitlement first. The court asks whether any of the three bases applies: did the marriage cause you economic loss (compensatory)? Was there an agreement (contractual)? Or do you simply have real need your former spouse has the means to help meet (non-compensatory)?
  2. Then amount and duration. Entitlement does not mean your full need gets covered indefinitely. The court weighs everything: how long you were together, how intertwined your finances were, your former spouse's means and new obligations, and what has already been paid (paras 53–54).

Two cautions from the judgment itself. The Court said the amount of support does not have to equal the amount of need (para 54). And it refused to set any fixed time limits in either direction — in its words at para 57, "There are no magical cut-off dates."

The framework {#numbers}

The three bases of spousal support entitlement recognized in Bracklow (paras 15, 38–43, 49):

Basis Statutory anchor (as applied today) What the court looks at
Compensatory Divorce Act s. 15.2(6)(a)–(b); FLA s. 161(a)–(b) Career opportunities given up, or economic disadvantage caused by the marriage or its breakdown
Contractual Divorce Act s. 15.2(4)(c); FLA s. 162(c) An express or implied agreement that one spouse would support the other
Non-compensatory Divorce Act s. 15.2(6)(c)–(d); FLA s. 161(c)–(d) Need and ability to pay — hardship from the breakdown itself, even without marriage-caused loss

Factors affecting amount and duration once entitlement is shown (paras 53–54 and 61):

Factor Effect noted by the Court
Length of the relationship A short marriage may make a full, indefinite obligation harder to justify
Payor's limited means May reduce the award
Payor's new family obligations May reduce the award, so far as they affect means
Contract or conduct of the parties May increase, reduce, or cancel the mutual support obligation
Amounts already paid Counted — earlier payments may fully satisfy the obligation

The verified figures in the case itself:

Item Amount
Mr. Bracklow's income at trial $3,764 per month
Interim support ordered $275 per month, rising to $400 on May 15, 1994
Mrs. Bracklow's disability benefits $787 per month
Voluntary payment after separation (soon stopped) $200 per month

What this means if you're separating in Surrey {#bc-impact}

Bracklow started as a British Columbia case, and its rule applies directly here. If illness or disability keeps you from working, you can claim spousal support even if your health problems began before the relationship and were not caused by it. Mr. Bracklow knew about his wife's health problems from the start; that did not defeat her claim.

A few practical points for BC:

  • You don't need to have been married. Under the Family Law Act, s. 3, you can claim spousal support if you lived together in a marriage-like relationship for at least two continuous years, or have a child together. If you are divorcing, the Divorce Act also applies — see our overview of divorce in BC.
  • Child support comes first. The Family Law Act, s. 173, requires spousal support to give priority to child support. Read more about child support in BC.
  • Agreements matter — both ways. A support release in a separation agreement can end a claim (FLA s. 163), though courts can set agreements aside in limited circumstances (FLA s. 164). Equally, an implied understanding of mutual support can help found a claim.
  • Entitlement is only the first step. As Bracklow itself shows, winning on entitlement does not fix the amount or how long payments last. Those questions are often well suited to negotiation or family mediation rather than a trial.

How a lawyer uses Bracklow {#in-practice}

For a spouse claiming support, Bracklow is the answer to "but the marriage didn't cause your problems." A lawyer uses it to show that causation is not required for a needs-based claim: the court must consider all the statutory objectives, including relief of hardship arising from the breakdown itself. The longer and more financially intertwined the relationship, the stronger the argument.

For a paying spouse, Bracklow cuts the other way on amount and duration. It confirms that need does not automatically translate into full or permanent support; that limited means, new family obligations, and payments already made all count; and that a genuinely independent, keep-everything-separate relationship can rebut the presumption of mutual support.

In drafting, Bracklow explains why careful support clauses matter: the parties' contract or conduct "may enhance, diminish or negate" the mutual support obligation (para 53). That is a reason to put intentions in writing before or during the relationship, not after it ends.

You can read our other commentaries in the case studies library.

Frequently asked questions {#faq}

Does it matter that my illness started before we got together?

It did not defeat the claim in Bracklow. Mr. Bracklow knew from the start that his wife had health problems, and the trial judge found the marriage did not cause them. The Supreme Court still held she was eligible for support, based on need, the length of the relationship, and his ability to pay.

How long would support last if I can never work again?

There is no automatic answer. Bracklow says entitlement based on need does not guarantee payments matching your full need for life — the court weighs the length of the relationship, your former spouse's means and new obligations, and what has already been paid. In Bracklow itself, the Court accepted that past payments might already have satisfied the obligation.

We never married. Can I still claim support if I'm too sick to work?

Bracklow was a married couple's case, but in BC today the Family Law Act extends spousal support to unmarried spouses: people who lived together in a marriage-like relationship for at least two continuous years, or who have a child together. The same objectives — including relieving hardship from the breakdown — apply.

References {#references}

Read the decision itself: Bracklow v Bracklow, [1999] 1 SCR 420