“In Davis v. Crawford, 2011 ONCA 294 (CanLII), a five-person panel of this court revisited the question of lump sum spousal support and, in particular, reconsidered the court’s earlier decision in Mannarino, upon which the trial judge relied in part. In Davis,the court clarified that lump sum spousal support is not reserved only for cases where there is a real risk that periodic payments would not be made or other very unusual circumstances. Rather, s. 34 of the Family Law Act confers a broad discretion on judges to make an award of periodic or lump sum spousal support as appropriate under the circumstances. That said, at para. 60, the court reaffirmed that a lump sum award should not be made in the guise of support for the purpose of redistributing assets. This is the issue for which the trial judge made reference to Mannarino.
The court discussed at paras. 60 – 76 of Davisa number of considerations as relevant to the question of the propriety of a lump sum spousal support award. One important consideration is whether the payor has the ability to make a lump sum payment without undermining the payor’s future self-sufficiency. The court explains that there is a need to weigh the perceived advantages of making a lump sum award in the particular case against any presenting disadvantages, and that the advantages and disadvantages of making such an award will be highly variable and case specific. The court identified a number of these advantages and disadvantages at paras. 67 and 68, most of which were referred to by the trial judge. The court noted that as a practical matter, most spousal support orders will be in the form of periodic payments. But, a lump sum award will not necessarily take the place of periodic support and can be made to supplement an award of periodic support.”