COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Miller, Wilson and Madsen JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Cheryl Patricia Holden
Applicant (Appellant)
and
Clark Peter Holden
Respondent (Respondent)
J. Alison Campbell, for the appellant
Alice Weatherston and Angela Caroline Livingstone, for the respondent
Heard: August 20, 2026
On appeal from the order of Justice Mary A. Fraser of the Superior Court of Justice, dated February 13, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] On February 13, 2025, following a six-day trial on property and support issues, the trial judge ordered the respondent husband, Clark Holden (the “husband”), to pay lump sum spousal support in the net amount of $55,000 to the appellant wife, Cheryl Holden (the “wife”). She ordered that amount to be offset against an equalization payment of $88,183.29 owing from the wife to the husband. Costs were set at $30,000. The wife appeals the spousal support order and the costs order. Neither party appeals the determinations in relation to property.
[2] The parties were married for 21 years, separating in July 2019 when the husband was 54 and the wife was 47. Both were employed during the marriage. The trial judge found that the wife’s annual income was $154,008, and the husband’s was $210,794. While the wife had relocated to Ottawa to support a career opportunity for the husband, the trial judge found that the wife’s career trajectory was not compromised. Rather, the wife’s career “progressed steadily upward” as a result of her positive career choices. Further, the trial judge did not accept the argument that the wife’s guardianship responsibilities for her niece compromised her career.
[3] On the evidence before her, the trial judge concluded that the wife’s entitlement to support was not based on compensatory principles, but that she had “some entitlement to spousal support” on a non-compensatory basis. She considered the DivorceMate calculations provided by the parties. Referencing her extensive findings of fact set out earlier in the judgment, she set lump sum spousal support at $55,000, net of tax. This was lower than the wife’s requested lump sum amount of $150,000. The husband’s position was that there should be no spousal support payable or in the alternative, a lump sum of $35,000.
[4] The wife makes three submissions:
(1) the trial judge failed to determine the duration of spousal support contrary to the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 2008) (“SAAGs”);
(2) the trial judge failed to provide reasons for awarding lump sum rather than periodic spousal support; and
(3) the trial judge erred in awarding an amount falling outside the SSAGs range.
[5] Spousal support awards attract significant deference. This court will not overturn a spousal support award unless the reasons disclose an error in principle, a significant misapprehension of the evidence, or the award is clearly wrong: Davis v. Crawford, 2011 ONCA 294, 106 O.R. (3d) 221, at para. 77; Hickey v. Hickey, 1999 CanLII 691 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518, at para. 11. The trial judge made no reviewable error in her determination of either the form or quantum of spousal support.
[6] First, the trial judge recognized that this was a case where the “Rule of 65” applies. Therefore, the duration, had support been periodic, would have been indefinite (and therefore uncertain), and subject to variation: Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: The Revised User’s Guide (Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 2016), at p. 29 (“SSAG User’s Guide”). The trial judge had discretion to determine an appropriate lump sum based on all the relevant circumstances: Davis,at para. 69; SSAG User’s Guide, at p. 51. Further, it can be inferred, based on the incomes attributed to the parties, and because the trial judge characterized the support as being between the low and mid-range under the SSAGs, that the approximate notional duration upon which the lump sum was based, was 6 years.[1]
[7] Second, both parties requested that any spousal support payable be in the form of lump sum support. In her closing submissions, the wife’s primary position was that she be paid a lump sum amount of $150,000. Even on appeal, she continues to seek a lump sum award. The failure to consider the advantages and disadvantages of a lump sum spousal support order has been held to be an error in principle: Mwanri v. Mwanri, 2015 ONCA 843, 343 O.A.C. 154, at para. 67; see also Davis, at para. 66. However, this principle emerges from cases in which lump sum support was not sought by both parties: Davis, at paras. 19-20. The trial judge cannot be faulted for acceding to that joint request on the facts of this case, nor were detailed reasons for doing so necessary in the face of that joint position.
[8] Third, there was no error in awarding either an amount or a duration lower than what the SSAGs might have generated. The SSAGs are advisory only: Fisher v. Fisher, 2008 ONCA 11, 88 O.R. (3d) 241, at paras. 95-98; Yemchuk v. Yemchuk, 2005 BCCA 406, 44 B.C.L.R. (4th) 77, at para. 62. The trial judge made extensive findings of fact and gave detailed reasons supporting her determination that there was no compensatory entitlement and only “some” non-compensatory entitlement. These findings directly anchored the lump sum that she awarded. The trial judge exercised her discretion appropriately.
Disposition
[9] The appeal is dismissed.
[10] Costs are set at $15,000 inclusive of HST payable to the husband within 30 days.
“B.W. Miller J.A.”
“D.A. Wilson J.A.”
“L. Madsen J.A.”
1The wife tendered a DivorceMate calculation on appeal suggesting that the after-tax midpoint at the low end of the SSAGs was $89,505 and the mid-range was $104,520, based on a duration of 10.5 years (half the length of the marriage). This is equivalent to an average of $9,239.28 per year. A lump sum amount of $55,000 thus equates to approximately 6 years of support.