The respondent argued that the claimant was not a person who was out of the job market for many years and exclusively caring for the children and managing household tasks. He relies on Mackenzie v. Mackenzie, 1998 CanLII 1225 (B.C.S.C.) for the proposition that permanent maintenance should not be ordered for the claimant because his work schedule allowed him to undertake substantial parts of the child rearing and household maintenance and she is now capable of earning a substantial income. He referred to her demonstrated accomplishments in real estate and in acupressure. Her real estate sales income was considerable and her skill and achievements in acupressure are evidence of an ability to earn a substantial income notwithstanding her allegation that business has dwindled.
"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.