“In his Reasons, the Arbitrator stated, at paragraph 3.8, that he addresses each of the issues in separate sections, but that they are in no order of priority or importance. Nonetheless, in paragraph 13.1, the Arbitrator states, “Having dealt with the financial support for Abbey and for the children, the next important issue to determine, surrounds the division of property.”
The Arbitrator’s approach is an error in law. When determining support under s. 15.2(4) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), the court is to look at the party’s means, which includes all pecuniary assets. The amount of equalization to which a party is entitled, and the impact of any income-generating potential associated with the assets retained by the parties, will affect a support analysis: Greenglass v. Greenglass, 2010 ONCA 675 at paras. 40-42; Leskun v. Leskun, 2006 SCC 25 at para. 29.
Accordingly, issues of property should be determined first. It also eliminates the risk that a payee’s ability to become economically independent is considered twice: Hartshorne v. Hartshorne, 2004 SCC 22 at para. 56.”