A lot of the case law that deals with spousal support is about how this particular section of the ''Divorce Act'' has been interpreted in past cases, a good example of which is the 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decision in ''[http://canlii.ca/t/dlq Bracklow v Bracklow]'': <blockquote>"Against the background of these objectives [in section 15.2(6)] the court must consider the factors set out in s. 15.2(4) of the ''Divorce Act''. Generally, the court must look at the 'condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse'. This balancing includes, but is not limited to, the length of cohabitation, the functions each spouse performed, and any order, agreement or arrangement relating to support. Depending on the circumstances, some factors may loom larger than others. In cases where the extent of the economic loss can be determined, compensatory factors may be paramount. On the other hand, 'in cases where it is not possible to determine the extent of the economic loss of a disadvantaged spouse ... the court will consider need and standard of living as the primary criteria together with the ability to pay of the other party': ''Ross v Ross''. There is no hard and fast rule. The judge must look at all the factors in the light of the stipulated objectives of support, and exercise his or her discretion in a manner that equitably alleviates the adverse consequences of the marriage breakdown."</blockquote> A lawyer making an argument about why spousal support should be awarded to her their client now might make an argument to the judge supported by case law , perhaps including the decision in ''Bracklow'', showing how this section has been interpreted to award spousal support in the past to spouses in circumstances similar to those of her their client.