In a case from Ontario, Perri v. Perri 2017 ONCA 1001, the Court of Appeal considered the husband’s arguments that an order for lump sum spousal support for his wife constituted an error in law. The parties had been married for 22 years and had 2 children.
The appeal court noted that the parties had agreed that lump sum support was preferable to monthly payments as their post-marital relationship was marked by animosity.
While the Court dismissed the husband’s appeal, finding that compensatory factors were in play, it did correct two legal errors. The first was the lower court’s order that the wife be designated as the sole irrevocable beneficiary of the husband’s life insurance policy. The error was that there was no indication of an end date with respect to the beneficiary designation. The appeal court inserted the following language to that order:
“until the lump sum spousal support is paid and as security for lump sum spousal
The second legal error was as a result of the Brampton court registry insisting that counsel include a paragraph in the order that the husband was under a continuing obligation to provide annual updated financial information to his wife. The appeal court confirmed that such disclosure was not required where the order for support was lump sum.
Two practice points arise from this case:
1. The first is that a life insurance designation in a support order is intended to provide security to a receipient spouse or parent in the event of the untimely death of a payor. It is not intended to be a transfer of wealth upon a payor’s death.
2. The second is that while court registry staff are typically very knowledgable and helpful, they are not infallible. The notion of an ongoing disclosure requirement initiated by clerks, where no such order was made, is a stark example of why counsel should remember that it is their responsibility to enter an order that mirrors the court’s judgment or the court clerk’s notes.
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang