Interim Spousal Support Can Be Ordered Despite Waiver Dispute: Stoney v Easton

Case Overview

Stoney v Easton, 2025 ABCA 130 is a Court of Appeal of Alberta decision involving an appeal by Cory Easton against an interim spousal support order made in favor of Shealagh Louise G. Stoney. The case deals with the enforceability of a Separation Agreement waiving spousal support and whether interim spousal support should be ordered pending trial.

---

Why This Decision is Important

This decision clarifies how courts treat interim spousal support applications when there is a dispute about the validity of a Separation Agreement waiving support. It highlights the court’s approach to balancing the needs of the dependent spouse versus the payor’s ability to pay, especially when there are unresolved issues that require a full trial. It also underscores the deference given to discretionary orders made at an interim stage and the importance of moving quickly towards trial.

---

Case Details

• The parties began cohabiting in 2007, married in 2010, and separated in August 2020.
• In December 2020, they signed a Separation Agreement, where Ms. Stoney waived spousal support on the condition Mr. Easton assumed all matrimonial debt.
• Ms. Stoney later applied for interim spousal support in early 2024, alleging Mr. Easton breached the Agreement by not using the equity from one sold property to pay off a foreclosed property’s deficit.
• Ms. Stoney claimed financial hardship worsened by medical conditions, including bipolar disorder, and inability to work.
• The chambers judge found that the enforceability of the Separation Agreement was uncertain and required a trial.
• The judge ordered Mr. Easton to pay interim spousal support of $3,000 per month starting October 1, 2024, until trial.
• Mr. Easton appealed, arguing among other things:
  • His late cross-application was wrongly excluded.
  • The chambers judge erred in assessing Ms. Stoney’s needs and his means.
  • The Separation Agreement waiver should be enforced under the Miglin test.
  • The order lacked a clear end date.
  • The court should have taken specific procedural steps to expedite resolution.

---

Outcome

• The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
• It ruled that:
  • The chambers judge did not err in refusing to hear Mr. Easton’s late cross-application because it was properly excluded on procedural grounds.
  • The judge correctly applied the test for interim spousal support focusing on reasonable temporary relief based on needs and means.
  • There was no error in giving weight to Ms. Stoney’s medical conditions and financial needs despite their cause not directly being the marriage breakdown.
  • The uncertainty about the Separation Agreement’s enforceability justified interim support pending trial.
  • The interim support order continuing “until further order” was acceptable since the parties were expected to proceed promptly to trial.
  • No requirement existed for the chambers judge to establish a litigation plan or special procedural steps at this stage.
• The Court emphasized that appeals of interim orders should not delay moving towards trial.

---

Key Takeaways

• Interim spousal support can be granted even if a waiver exists in a Separation Agreement, if there is a serious question about its enforceability requiring a trial.
• Courts place greater emphasis on the immediate needs and means of the parties for interim orders rather than final determinations based on all factors.
• Medical conditions affecting ability to work may justify interim support regardless of whether those conditions were caused by the marriage breakdown.
• Interim orders are temporary and subject to change after a full trial; repayment may be ordered if support is ultimately not owed.
• Procedural discretion (e.g., excluding late cross-applications) is respected unless clearly unreasonable.
• Parties are expected to actively progress towards trial or alternative dispute resolution to avoid prolonged interim orders.
• Legal counsel should ensure that formal orders accurately reflect judicial directions, such as clear end dates or conditions.

---

References

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2025/2025abca130/2025abca130.html

The Legal Review Process by Spectrum Family Law

• Spectrum strives for high-quality, legally verified content.
• Content is meticulously researched and reviewed by our legal writers/proofers (usually local law students).
• Details are sourced from trusted legal sources like the Family Law Act.
• Each article is edited for accuracy, clarity, and relevance.
• If you find any incorrect information or discrepancies in legal facts, we kindly ask that you contact us with a correction to ensure accuracy.