Case reference: Davis v. Crawford, 2011 ONCA 294 (CanLII)
This historical case summary discusses the decision identified above. Later decisions and legislative changes may affect how it applies today. Obtain legal advice about your circumstances.
Family law — Support — Spousal support — Lump sum — Court’s ability to award lump sum spousal support not restricted to situations where there is real risk that periodic payments would not be made or to other limited and very unusual circumstances.
The parties were common law spouses. They began living together in 1982, when the appellant was 41 and the respondent was 42 years old, and separated after 23 years. Both parties contributed to the household expenses from their respective incomes during the relationship. The respondent was diagnosed with a non-malignant brain tumour in 1999. She suffered a stroke in 2000 and retired from the workforce following surgery. With minor exceptions, her assets consisted of her share of the proceeds of sale of a jointly owned property and her pension. The trial judge awarded the respondent lump sum spousal support in the amount of $135,000. The appellant appealed.
Held, the appeal should be dismissed.
A court’s ability to award lump sum spousal support is not restricted to situations where there is a real risk that periodic payments would not be made or to other limited and very unusual circumstances. A lump sum order can be made to relieve against financial hardship. An important consideration in determining whether to make a lump sum spousal support award is whether the payor has the ability to make a lump sum payment without undermining the payor’s future self-sufficiency. A court considering an award of lump sum spousal support must weigh the perceived advantages of making a lump sum award in the particular case against any disadvantages.
The trial judge did not err in making a lump sum award in the circumstances of this case. Having regard to her findings that the appellant had greater assets and means than he was prepared to acknowledge and that he was attempting to shelter assets from the respondent’s reach, it was apparent that she concluded there was a real risk that the appellant would not pay periodic support and that that factor alone mandated an award of lump sum support. Further, the appellant’s failure to make proper disclosure made a clean break between the parties desirable.
[page222]
*source: Canlii
