Nineteen months married, and a support claim that could not stand as filed

The situation

Twenty-two thousand dollars a year, indefinitely. That was the spousal support figure written into the first draft of the separation terms Navdeep brought into our office, and it was the number that made him ask a second lawyer to look at the file before he signed anything. On a household where neither spouse cleared much more than minimum wage most months, a figure like that was not a rounding difference. It was close to half of what Navdeep expected to earn in a year once his program finished.

Navdeep and Harpreet had married after a relatively short courtship, the kind of decision that felt right at the time and left little opportunity to build the sort of financial entanglement that long marriages usually produce. Navdeep was a college student with part-time income from a retail job he worked around his class schedule, and Harpreet worked as a security guard while also holding a stake in a family business, a small operation that had been in Harpreet's family for years and that Harpreet was not actively drawing a large income from during the marriage. The marriage lasted nineteen months before the couple separated, a period short enough that neither of them had finished paying off the modest wedding itself.

Household finances on both sides were modest. Between them, income sat under $45,000 a year, and neither side owned significant property beyond a shared apartment and some furniture accumulated during the short time they lived together. Navdeep's original advisor, a consultant named Omar he had found through an online listing rather than a referral from anyone he knew, had drafted the separation terms based on a template that assumed a longer relationship and did not account for how the length of the marriage affects support entitlement under the Divorce Act. Omar was not a family lawyer, and nothing in the draft suggested the template had been adjusted to reflect the specific facts of a nineteen-month marriage with no children.

Harpreet's side had not challenged the draft terms yet, and Navdeep was uneasy about signing something he did not fully understand, particularly a number that felt large relative to what either of them actually earned. He wanted to know whether the figure Omar had proposed reflected what the law would actually support, or whether it had simply been copied from a template that did not fit his marriage at all, and he was worried enough about the size of the number that he held off signing anything until he had a second opinion.

What the documents showed

Ontario's spousal support framework does not set a fixed rule that a short marriage produces no support at all, but the length of a relationship is one of the central factors courts and negotiated settlements weigh in deciding both whether support is owed and for how long. A marriage under two years, with no children and no significant economic dependency built up over time, is a materially different case from a decade-long marriage where one spouse gave up career opportunities, delayed their own education, or restructured their working life around the household.

Reviewing the file, we found nothing in Navdeep and Harpreet's short time together that supported an indefinite award. Navdeep had continued his studies throughout the marriage rather than deferring them for Harpreet's benefit, and his part-time retail income, modest as it was, had continued the whole time as well. Neither spouse had taken on caregiving responsibilities that reduced their earning capacity, since there were no children and no dependent family members either of them was supporting. There was no shared business between the two of them, Harpreet's stake in the family business having predated the marriage and remaining separate from anything Navdeep contributed to. There was no jointly built asset base beyond the apartment's furnishings, and no pattern of one spouse's income supporting the other's advancement, education or career development in a way that would typically justify an ongoing compensatory award.

The one factor that did carry some weight was the modest disparity in living standards the marriage's end created. Navdeep had relied in part on Harpreet's income during the marriage to cover shared rent and expenses, and losing that support suddenly, with a part-time student income to fall back on, was a real transition to manage even if it did not justify support running indefinitely. This kind of transitional hardship is recognized in Ontario support law, but it typically supports a limited period of assistance while a lower-earning spouse re-establishes their footing, not an open-ended monthly payment running for years.

What Omar's draft had missed was the distinction between support that helps a spouse transition after a short marriage and support that compensates for a genuine economic disadvantage built up over years together. The template language had defaulted to the latter without checking whether the facts supported it, producing a number that was likely to unravel the moment Harpreet's side pushed back, and that put Navdeep at risk of relying on an agreement built on a claim he could not actually sustain if it were ever tested. Worse, had Navdeep signed the agreement as drafted and Harpreet later challenged it, he could have ended up worse off than if he had never proposed the inflated figure at all, having built his financial planning around a number that was never realistic.

What we did

1. Separated the marriage timeline from the relationship timeline. We started by pulling the marriage timeline apart from the relationship timeline, since the legal calculation runs from the date of marriage rather than the date the couple first started living together. In this case the two dates were close enough that it did not change the analysis, but confirming it removed one variable before negotiations began, since a longer relationship period can sometimes shift how a short-marriage support claim is viewed.
2. Audited the basis for the original $22,000 figure. We reviewed exactly what Omar's draft had claimed as the basis for the $22,000-a-year figure, and found no calculation tying it to Navdeep and Harpreet's actual incomes, the marriage length, or any recognized support guideline. It appeared to have been carried over largely intact from a template document, which told us the number had never really been tested against the facts of this specific marriage in the first place.
3. Reset the negotiating position. Rather than defend the original figure, which we did not think a court would uphold on these facts, we told Navdeep plainly that continuing to ask for it risked losing credibility with Harpreet's side and prolonging a dispute over a modest total pool of assets that neither of them could afford to spend much fighting over.
4. Proposed a transitional package instead. We proposed instead a transitional package: a fixed-term support arrangement running a matter of months rather than years, sized to help Navdeep adjust to a single income while finishing his college program, paired with a modest lump-sum payment in place of ongoing monthly amounts that would otherwise require both sides to stay financially entangled long after the marriage had already ended.
5. Checked the property picture before finalizing the trade. We also reviewed what little property existed between the couple to make sure the revised proposal was not simply giving away support entitlement without accounting for any offsetting claim to shared assets, and confirmed there was little to trade against beyond the furniture and a small joint savings balance, which kept the negotiation narrowly focused on the support question itself rather than expanding into a broader property dispute.
6. Prepared Navdeep for the cost of a contested hearing. We prepared Navdeep for the possibility that Harpreet's side would resist even the scaled-back proposal, and walked him through what a contested hearing on entitlement would likely cost in time and legal fees relative to what was actually at stake, so he could weigh a negotiated outcome against that alternative with real numbers in front of him rather than in the abstract.
7. Opened direct talks with Harpreet's counsel. Once we had a defensible position, we opened direct talks with Harpreet's counsel, who had independently reached a similar view that the original figure was not sustainable, which meant the negotiation moved quickly once both sides were finally working from the same shared understanding of what the law actually supported, rather than starting from two very different assumptions about entitlement in the first place.

The outcome

The parties settled on a time-limited support arrangement running several months, sized to bridge Navdeep through the remainder of his college program, plus a modest lump sum in place of any further ongoing payments. It was a fraction of the value the original draft had proposed, and Navdeep had to accept that the open-ended support figure Omar put forward was never realistically available to him, no matter how the initial paperwork had been worded.

Harpreet, for their part, gave up the position that no support at all was owed, accepting that the sudden loss of household income during a study term was a real hardship worth addressing even in a short marriage without children or shared assets. Neither side got the deal they might have wanted going in. Harpreet's counsel had initially floated the idea of no payment whatsoever, on the theory that a marriage this brief created no entitlement at all, and had to move off that position once the transitional hardship argument was laid out clearly.

What Navdeep avoided was worse than a smaller settlement: signing an agreement built around a support figure that likely would not have survived a challenge, only to have Harpreet's side contest it later and leave him renegotiating from a weaker position, or facing a claim to unwind an agreement induced by a flawed initial analysis from an advisor with no family law training. Either of those outcomes would have cost him more, in both money and time, than the modest settlement he ultimately accepted.

The settlement he ended up with was smaller than the first draft promised, but it was one both sides could actually stand behind without expecting a future challenge, and it let Navdeep finish his program without the distraction of an ongoing support dispute hanging over him for years. The file closed within a few months of Navdeep first walking into our office, a fraction of the time a contested hearing over entitlement would likely have taken.

What you can learn from this