Separation and divorce often involve difficult discussions about parenting, property division, and financial support. While many people focus on what happens during their lifetime, few consider an important question:
What happens to spousal support if the payor dies?
Does support simply stop? Can payments continue from the deceased spouse’s estate? Can a separation agreement require support to survive death?
These questions recently received significant attention in Alberta following the decision in McCulloch v. McCulloch [2025 ABKB 148].
In today’s blog, Peter Graburn, senior family lawyer at Shim Law in Calgary, discusses what this decision means for separating spouses and why careful drafting of separation agreements has become more important than ever.
The Common Assumption
Many people assume that if a person paying spousal support dies, the support obligation automatically ends.
Historically, this assumption was often correct.
Spousal support has traditionally been viewed as a personal obligation between former spouses. Once the payor dies, the obligation generally ends unless a Court Order or agreement specifically provides otherwise.
For many years, this was the practical reality in most family law matters.
However, modern family law has become increasingly focused on economic fairness following separation, particularly in long-term marriages where one spouse may have sacrificed career opportunities to support the family or raise children.
As a result, Courts have become more willing to examine whether support should continue after death in appropriate circumstances.
The McCulloch Decision
The Alberta Court of King’s Bench recently addressed this issue in McCulloch v. McCulloch [2025 ABKB 148].
The case involved a former spouse who had been receiving significant monthly spousal support. After the payor died, a dispute arose regarding whether the support obligation survived and whether payments could continue from the deceased spouse’s estate.
The Court conducted a detailed review of Alberta law and clarified several important principles.
Perhaps most importantly, the Court confirmed that there is no automatic rule requiring a deceased person’s estate to continue paying spousal support under the Divorce Act.
Instead, the answer depends largely on the wording of the Court Order or agreement creating the support obligation.
The Default Rule
The Court confirmed that under the Divorce Act, spousal support is generally considered a personal obligation.
If a support Order or separation agreement is silent regarding death, support will usually end when the payor dies.
This may come as a surprise to many people. A spouse may have relied on support payments for years, yet those payments can disappear immediately upon the payor’s death unless proper planning has occurred.
For older spouses who have limited employment prospects or who have been out of the workforce for many years, the financial consequences can be severe.
The Exception: Clear Language Matters
While the default rule may appear harsh, the Court also confirmed that spouses have considerable flexibility to structure their own arrangements.
Support can continue after death if the parties clearly agree that it should.
For example, a separation agreement may provide that:
- the support obligation survives the death of the payor;
- the obligation becomes binding on the payor’s estate;
- support is secured by life insurance; or
- a lump-sum payment will be made from the estate in satisfaction of future support obligations.
The key lesson from McCulloch is that Courts will generally respect the parties’ intentions when those intentions are clearly expressed.
In family law, ambiguity often creates litigation. Clarity often prevents it.
Why This Issue Is Becoming More Important
This issue frequently arises in what are sometimes called “grey divorces” – separations involving spouses in their 50s, 60s, or older.
In these situations:
- one spouse may have been financially dependent for decades;
- retirement income may be the primary source of support;
- the recipient spouse may have little realistic ability to re-enter the workforce; and
- support may be intended to continue for many years.
The death of the payor can therefore create a significant financial crisis if proper protections are not in place.
A carefully drafted agreement can help prevent this uncertainty and provide security for both parties.
Life Insurance: Often the Better Solution
In many cases, family lawyers prefer not to rely solely on the future administration of an estate.
Instead, support obligations are frequently secured through life insurance.
Under this approach, the payor maintains a life insurance policy naming the recipient spouse as beneficiary. If the payor dies, the recipient receives the insurance proceeds directly rather than having to pursue a claim against the estate.
This approach offers several advantages.
The payment is typically received more quickly, avoids many estate administration delays, and provides greater certainty to both parties. It may also reduce future conflict between the surviving former spouse and the deceased spouse’s beneficiaries.
For this reason, life insurance provisions are commonly included in well-drafted separation agreements involving ongoing support obligations.
What About Common-Law Couples?
An additional complication arises because different legislation may apply depending on the nature of the relationship.
The McCulloch decision focuses primarily on support obligations arising under the Divorce Act.
However, Alberta’s Family Law Act contains provisions that can produce different results in certain circumstances.
This distinction highlights why legal advice remains important when negotiating support arrangements. Two cases that appear similar on the surface may be governed by different legal frameworks.
The Practical Lesson
The most important lesson from McCulloch is simple.
Do not assume that spousal support will automatically continue after the payor’s death.
If support is intended to survive death, that intention should be clearly documented. If support is intended to be secured, appropriate mechanisms such as life insurance should be considered.
Many family law disputes arise not because parties disagree, but because they failed to address an issue before it became a problem.
Death, while uncomfortable to discuss, is one of those issues.
Final Thoughts
The recent decision in McCulloch v. McCulloch provides important guidance for separated spouses across Alberta. It confirms that spousal support does not automatically survive the death of the payor under the Divorce Act, but it also confirms that parties can create enforceable arrangements that provide continuing financial protection.
For individuals negotiating a separation agreement, reviewing an existing support arrangement, or participating in mediation, this issue deserves careful consideration.
Peter Graburn and the family law team at Shim Law assist clients in negotiating, drafting, and reviewing support agreements that provide clarity, certainty, and long-term financial security while helping avoid future disputes.
High-conflict situations can be exhausting. Support from family, professionals, or counsellors can assist in maintaining perspective and making sound decisions throughout the process.
Courts have repeatedly noted that personality traits associated with narcissism are often resistant to change. In several Alberta decisions, judges have declined to order therapy where there was little evidence it would be effective or followed.
Instead, the Court’s focus tends to be on managing risk — particularly through structured parenting arrangements, supervision, or limitations designed to protect children.
