Does Spousal Misconduct Affect Spousal Support in British Columbia?

Canadian spousal support law is deliberately structured to separate moral fault from financial obligation. Generally, behaviours such as affairs, substance abuse, verbal conflict, or the fact that one spouse “caused the separation” will not be decisive.

The General Rule: Misconduct Is Irrelevant

Under both the Divorce Act and British Columbia’s Family Law Act, courts generally do not consider misconduct in relation to the marriage when determining spousal support.

Section 15.2(5) of the Divorce Act provides that a court “shall not take into account any misconduct of a spouse in relation to the marriage.” Similarly, section 166 of the Family Law Act starts from the same principle.

This means that conduct such as infidelity, emotional conflict, alcohol use, or the decision to leave the relationship generally has no bearing on entitlement to spousal support.

Spousal support is not punitive. It is focused on need, means, economic disadvantage, and the ability to become self sufficient.

The Narrow Exception Under the Family Law Act

While the general rule excludes misconduct, the Family Law Act contains a limited exception.

Section 166 permits the court to consider misconduct only where the conduct arbitrarily or unreasonably:

  • causes, prolongs, or aggravates the need for spousal support, or
  • affects a party’s ability to provide spousal support.

Importantly, this exception does not reintroduce marital fault through the back door. Courts have consistently interpreted it narrowly.

What Counts as Relevant Misconduct?

British Columbia courts have applied section 166 primarily in situations involving conduct directly tied to the spousal support analysis itself, not the breakdown of the relationship.

Examples include:

  • A spouse deliberately refusing to pursue reasonable employment or retraining without justification.
  • A party intentionally concealing income or providing misleading financial disclosure.
  • Conduct that directly undermines the court’s ability to assess need or ability to pay.

For example, in Street v Street, 2017 BCSC 981 the court denied spousal support where the claimant had intentionally misled both the court and the payor about her employment and income. That conduct directly affected the support analysis and engaged section 166.

By contrast, behaviour that merely contributed to the end of the relationship does not qualify.

Alcohol Use and Relationship Conflict

Alcohol use frequently arises in spousal support disputes, often framed as misconduct. Courts draw an important distinction between lifestyle choices during the relationship and conduct that actually causes or prolongs the need for support.

In McCracken v Matthew, 2023 BCSC 2203, the respondent argued that the claimant’s alcoholism and behaviour caused the separation and therefore her need for support. The court rejected that argument. It held that section 166 does not allow the court to consider misconduct related to the relationship itself. The focus must remain on whether the conduct unreasonably affects need or ability to pay.

The court emphasized that expanding the concept of misconduct to include relationship behaviour would undermine the statutory prohibition on considering marital fault.

Misconduct Versus Self Sufficiency

Courts do expect recipients of spousal support to make reasonable efforts toward self sufficiency where practicable. A failure to do so can matter. However, the analysis is contextual.

Age, health, education, work history, and realistic employment prospects all factor into whether self sufficiency is achievable. A court will not characterize a genuine inability to become self sufficient as misconduct simply because the outcome is financially inconvenient for the other spouse.

Key Takeaways

  • Spousal misconduct almost never defeats entitlement to spousal support.
  • Courts do not assess blame for the breakdown of the relationship.
  • Section 166 of the Family Law Act applies only to conduct directly connected to need or ability to pay.
  • Attempts to reframe marital fault as financial misconduct are routinely rejected.
  • The analysis remains grounded in fairness, economic reality, and statutory objectives.

If you are dealing with a spousal support claim where misconduct is being raised as an issue, careful legal analysis is essential. The label “misconduct” is easy to apply, but meeting the legal threshold is far more difficult

Go to top