## Facts

- Andrzej Moge (husband) and Zofia Moge (wife) married in Poland in the mid-1950s, emigrated to Canada in 1960, and had three children.
- The marriage involved traditional role specialization: the husband worked full-time; the wife, with limited education and no formal training, primarily performed unpaid domestic work and child care while also doing evening office-cleaning work.
- The parties separated in 1973 and divorced in 1980; the wife had custody of the children and received spousal and child support.
- In 1987 the wife was laid off; her support was increased to $400 per month, but she later obtained only part-time, intermittent cleaning work.
- In 1989 the husband applied to terminate spousal support.

## Issues

1. Under Divorce Act provisions governing variation of spousal support, when may a court terminate ongoing spousal support, particularly where self-sufficiency has not been achieved years after separation?
2. Whether “self-sufficiency within a reasonable period” should be treated as the dominant objective justifying termination (“sink or swim”).
3. Whether prior “clean break” jurisprudence limited continuation of spousal support on variation of a non-consensual (court-ordered) support regime.
4. When appellate courts may intervene with a trial judge’s discretionary support determination.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the husband’s appeal.
- The Court upheld the appellate disposition continuing spousal support (indefinite duration).
- The Court held the trial judge erred by treating self-sufficiency as effectively determinative and by failing to give proper effect to the full set of statutory support objectives.

## Legal Principles

- Self-sufficiency is a statutory objective of spousal support, but it is not an overriding condition that permits termination solely because the recipient spouse has not become economically independent.
- Spousal support under the Divorce Act must be assessed against multiple objectives, including compensation for economic disadvantage arising from the marriage and its breakdown, apportionment of child-care consequences, and relief of economic hardship.
- In long, traditional marriages with role specialization, unpaid domestic and caregiving work can create lasting labour-market disadvantage; support may properly address those continuing effects.
- Variation analysis must be contextual and realistic, including consideration of age, education, work history, and labour-market barriers affecting the recipient spouse.
- Earlier “clean break” reasoning does not rigidly control variation of non-consensual support orders; a court must apply the Divorce Act’s objectives to the circumstances before it.
- Appellate intervention is justified where a trial court misapplies governing principles or gives inadequate effect to statutory objectives.

## Conclusion

The Court confirmed that spousal support under the Divorce Act is not governed by a strict rehabilitative timeline and that, where a marriage and its breakdown cause continuing economic disadvantage and hardship, support may continue indefinitely notwithstanding the recipient’s incomplete self-sufficiency.


Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813 (Can.)