Trauma relevant in divorce

OTTAWA — The “pure H-E double L” of D-I-V-O-R-C-E, as Tammy Wynette once sang, has its price after all.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Wednesday that the emotional devastation wrought by a cheatin’ heart can be factored into a wronged spouse’s ability to earn a livelihood, and thus her (or his) need for ongoing spousal support.

As a result, Gary Leskun must continue paying his ex-wife Sherry — a woman who lower courts found was “bitter to the point of obsession” — some $2,250 a month, almost eight years after he dumped her for another woman.

Yet the same 20-page Supreme Court ruling upholds the no-fault provisions in the 1985 Divorce Act and urges self-sufficiency, a delicate balancing act that attempts to separate marital misconduct, in and of itself, from its debilitating fall-out.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1150889645658&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Again another decision that's more political than legal...

You would think that the Top Courts would provide a little more clarity to their decisions:

..."There is, of course, a distinction between the emotional consequences of misconduct and the misconduct itself," the court said. "Those consequences are not rendered irrelevant because of their genesis in the other spouse's misconduct.

"On the contrary, they can be highly relevant to factors — such as a claimant spouse's capacity to be self-sufficient — which must be considered when making a spousal support order."...

Globe

So what is the distinction exactly in this case that the lower courts didn't already mention?

Same questionable ruling as was the Chaoulli v. Quebec:

"The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital health care result in physical and psychological suffering that meets a threshold test of seriousness."

CTV

Nice to see clear rulings that hinge on such precise terms as 'distinction' and 'seriousness' as a legal basis for a citizens' Charter rights.

this woman deserves support, she basically used her savings to pay for his education and he dumps her.