COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Doherty, Pepall and van Rensburg JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Monique Leona Marie Stafford (Thompson)
Applicant (Appellant)
and
Michael Fleming Stafford
Respondent (Respondent in appeal)
Julie A. Layne and Andrea Acri, for the applicant (appellant)
Réjean Parisé, for the respondent (respondent in appeal)
Heard and released orally: April 24, 2015
On appeal from the order of Justice R.D. Gordon of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 4, 2013.
ENDORSEMENT
1The order under appeal was discretionary: see Schreyer v. Schreyer, 2011 SCC 35, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 605 at para. 37.
2The trial judge recognized, at para. 16 of his reasons, that the operation of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act could give rise to an inequity which, as he put it, “may” make an order as to post-retirement support appropriate.
3The trial judge determined, at para. 16, that the appellant’s entitlement to post-retirement support and the quantification of that entitlement, if any, was, in this case, best addressed by way of a review of the spousal support upon the respondent’s retirement when matters relevant to support, e.g. the parties’ means and needs, had crystallized. In making this order, the trial judge acknowledged and considered the controlling jurisprudence: see Decaen v. Decaen, 2013 ONCA 218.
4Having regard to the age of the parties at the time of the trial (early forties) and the time-limited support order the trial judge had made at the end of the trial as part of his main disposition of the various issues raised by the parties, we see no error in law or principle in the manner in which the trial judge exercised his discretion.
5We are concerned about the potential dissipation of the pension or its equivalent asset. The appellant should have protection against any unilateral dissipation of that asset prior to retirement. We trust that the parties can agree on terms that achieve that protection for the appellant. If not, the parties may arrange a conference call with Doherty J.A. to determine what further steps should be taken to determine the appropriate terms.
6The parties agree that the successful party on appeal should have costs in the amount of $8,000. Costs to the respondent in that amount, inclusive of disbursements and relevant taxes.
“Doherty J.A.”
“S.E. Pepall J.A.”
“K. van Rensburg J.A.”