What Stoney v. Easton Means for Anyone with a Separation Agreement

Many separation agreements include a clause where one spouse gives up, or "waives," their right to future spousal support. But what happens if that waiver is later disputed — and one spouse urgently needs financial help before the disagreement can be sorted out at trial?

The Alberta Court of Appeal answered that question in Stoney v. Easton, 2025 ABCA 130, and the ruling offers useful, practical guidance for anyone navigating a separation agreement.

What Happened

Ms. Stoney and Mr. Easton got together in 2007, married in 2010, and separated in August 2020. A few months later, they signed a Separation Agreement: Ms. Stoney agreed to waive spousal support, and in exchange Mr. Easton agreed to take on certain shared debts.

Several years later, Ms. Stoney asked the court for interim (temporary) spousal support. She argued that Mr. Easton hadn't held up his end of the agreement — particularly around those debts — and that her financial situation and health had gotten significantly worse since the split.

The First Ruling

The judge who first heard the case found that it wasn't clear whether the waiver in the Separation Agreement would ultimately hold up, and that the question needed a full trial to resolve. In the meantime, the judge ordered Mr. Easton to pay $3,000 a month in interim support.

Mr. Easton appealed, arguing the waiver should have blocked any support order in the first place.

What the Court of Appeal Decided

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the temporary support order. Its reasoning came down to a few key points:

• An interim support hearing isn't the place to finally decide whether a separation agreement is valid — that question is for trial.
• Simply having a waiver in an agreement doesn't automatically block interim support if there's a genuine, unresolved dispute about whether that agreement will hold up.
• Refusing support in the meantime could cause real hardship if the agreement later turns out to be unenforceable — so a temporary order helps protect against that risk.
• Health issues that limit a spouse's ability to work can be a relevant factor in assessing need, even if they weren't caused by the relationship breakdown itself.
• These are discretionary decisions, and appeal courts generally defer heavily to the judge who heard the case first.

Why This Matters for You

If you are separating, or you have already signed an agreement and something is not sitting right, here is what this case tells you:

• A signed waiver isn't necessarily the end of the story. If you believe your former spouse hasn't kept their side of the agreement, or your circumstances have changed significantly, it may still be worth raising the issue with a lawyer.
• Courts can act now and sort out the details later. Judges have the power to order temporary support to prevent hardship while the bigger legal question — is the waiver enforceable? — gets fully argued at trial.
• Financial need includes health. Medical issues that affect your ability to earn an income can factor into a support request, even if they're unrelated to why the relationship ended.
• These rulings are hard to overturn. Because interim support decisions are discretionary, appeal courts rarely second-guess them.

The Bottom Line

Stoney v. Easton is a reminder that separation agreements — while important and generally respected by the courts — aren't automatically the final word the moment a genuine dispute arises. Where enforceability is genuinely in question, courts will step in to prevent serious financial hardship while that dispute plays out.

If you have questions about a separation agreement, a support waiver, or applying for interim support, our family law team is here to help you understand your options.

Read the full decision: Stoney v Easton, 2025 ABCA 130 (CanLII)

This post is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice.