The Supreme Court sets a new standard....

Get set for lawyers going crazy over emotional trauma.

The emotional consequences of a spouse's misconduct can be weighed by the courts when judging spousal support payments, despite Canada's system of no-fault divorce, the nation's top court ruled Wednesday.

But the landmark decision from the Supreme Court of Canada stresses that misconduct alone is not a reason to financially support a wronged spouse.

"Misconduct, as such, is off the table as a relevant consideration,'' wrote Justice Ian Binnie. "Consequences (however) are not rendered irrelevant because of their genesis in the other spouse's misconduct.''

Despite the ruling, Gary Leskun's lawyer Lorne MacLean characterized the judgment as a legal victory.

"We won on the law we lost on the facts, which is basically what Mr. Justice Binnie said. He agreed with our submission that spousal misconduct should not play a part but felt that the judgment was sustainable on other grounds," he said, appearing on CTV Newsnet after the ruling.

The highly nuanced case centred on an appeal filed by Gary Leskun, who left his wife of 20 years to marry another woman in 1998.

He was appealing a lower court's judgment that he must continue to pay monthly spousal support to his ex-wife Sherry Leskun on the grounds she is so embittered from his extra-marital affair she can't work.

"Her life is this litigation,'' the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled in 2004 in upholding the $2,250 monthly spousal support.

The court wrote that Sherry Leskun, who is now 59, is "bitter to the point of obsession with his misconduct and in consequence has been unable to make a new life.''

But, here's Grant Brown's interpretation:

The SCC sets a new standard by saying that the "emotional devastation" suffered by a woman as a result of her husband's affair was sufficient to keep her out of work, thus necessitating the payment of spousal support indefinitely.

This should be good news for men. When women have affairs, men are just as emotionally devastated; but in addition, they also tend to lose their children, their homes, and often their friends and neighbours. It must be a source of amazement to the SCC that any man can find the strength to keep working after a separation. Surely they cannot be expected to pay child support, much less spousal support, when this happens. I look forward to this new standard being applied even handedly, pursuant to s. 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.