ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
K.K.
Gary Joseph and Vivian Merklinger, counsel for the Applicant
Applicant
- and -
M.M.
Aida Pasha, counsel for the Respondent
Respondent
SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Justice C. Petersen
Introduction
1This ruling deals only with the issues of retrospective1 spousal support, prospective spousal support, and security for the Applicant’s support obligations. It should be read in conjunction with my Reasons for Judgment in this case, dated June 1, 2021: K.K. v. M.M., 2021 ONSC 3975.
2In my Reasons for Judgment, at paragraphs 873-878, I found that M.M. was entitled to spousal support on both a compensatory and non-compensatory basis. I also concluded, at paragraphs 879-881, that it would be inconsistent with the objectives of the spousal support provisions in the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), to terminate K.K.’s spousal support payments at this time. I then included the following paragraphs:
882Although they are neither legislated nor binding on this Court, the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) are a useful tool in assisting the court to determine the appropriate amount and duration of spousal support: Gray, at para. 42. The application of the SSAG in