I am also of the view that reapportionment is warranted because of the greater need of the plaintiff to become or remain economically independent and self-sufficient. At the beginning of the marriage, both spouses were able to earn an income by working long hours at more than one job. The plaintiff is no longer in that position. As a result of the marriage and its breakdown, the plaintiff is now the sole caregiver for two young children. The fact that the plaintiff will bear the entirety of the child-rearing responsibilities is, in my view, a significant economic consequence of the marriage breakdown and a relevant consideration under s. 65(1)(e). See Kennedy v. Kennedy (1994), 98 B.C.L.R. (2d) 287 (S.C.). I have no difficulty concluding that this enormous responsibility will make it more difficult for the plaintiff to become economically self-sufficient.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.