ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: 41465/08
DATE: 2012/01/03
BETWEE N:
SUSAN ELIZABETH EVA
Judy A.F. Byrne, for the Applicant
Applicant
- and -
JOHN WILFRED EVA
Paul D. Amey, for the Respondent
Respondent
The Honourable Madam Justice W.L. MacPherson
ENDORSEMENT RE LIFE INSURANCE PROVISIONS
[ 1 ] My Reasons for Judgment were released on September 9, 2011. Since then counsel have been unsuccessful in settling the Order and in particular the terms dealing with life insurance.
[ 2 ] As a result of the final Order, the Respondent owes substantial sums of money to the Applicant including payments due under an interim order, retroactive spousal support and an equalization payment (to be paid over a ten year period) as well as a significant cost award as a result of my further Order of November 30, 2011.
[ 3 ] The Respondent was agreeable to provide a life insurance policy with a death benefit of $1 million and to name the Applicant as the beneficiary of this policy. The Respondent submits that in accordance with my reasons, the policy was only to be security for the equalization payment, or such amount as might be outstanding on account of property equalization at the death of the Respondent.
[ 4 ] The Applicant submits that the life insurance was also intended as security for the payment of spousal support and that regardless of the amount owed for the property equalization, the Applicant should be entitled to the proceeds of the life insurance policy.
[ 5 ] Having reviewed my notes and my reasons for judgment, it was certainly my intention that the life insurance would be security for both the equalization payment and the payment of spousal support. It was an oversight on my part not to have included that in my reasons. As such, I find that it is appropriate that my order of September 9, 2011 be amended pursuant to Rule 25 (19) (b)(c) of the Family Law Rules .
[ 6 ] Having reviewed the submissions of counsel, while the Applicant should not be entitled to a windfall as a result of the beneficiary designation on the life insurance policy, it is necessary that adequate security be provided for any amounts that may be due and owing to the Applicant under the Order. The provision that requires the Respondent to provide proof on an annual basis that the insurance policy remains in effect would continue. However, given the length of time that the indebtedness will be outstanding there may very well be changes in one or both of the parties’ circumstances, including the satisfaction of some of the payment obligations, which could warrant a change in the life insurance death benefit provision.
[ 7 ] Accordingly, the Order dated September 9, 2011 shall be amended to provide as follows:
As security for any amounts owing by the Respondent to the Applicant (including but not limited to any equalization payment, spousal support and other claims or costs in this proceeding) the Respondent shall maintain a policy of life insurance with a death benefit of $1 million which names the Applicant as the irrevocable beneficiary of said policy.
Either party may request a variation of the Respondent’s obligation to maintain the said life insurance policy or the amount of the death benefit, in the event of a material change of circumstances.
MacPherson J.
Released: January 3, 2012
COURT FILE NO.: 41465/08
DATE: 2012/01/03
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEE N: SUSAN ELIZABETH EVA Applicant - and - JOHN WILFRED EVA Respondent ENDORSEMENT RE LIFE INSURANCE PROVISIONS MacPherson J.
Released: January 3, 2012