Simon's Legal Resources

Money - Investment

. Starra v. Starra

In Starra v. Starra (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a family law appeal, here brought against "the motion judge’s order granting the respondent’s request to change spousal support in light of his imminent retirement and dismissing her motion for the retroactive adjustment of spousal support".

Here the court comments on the integral role of investment financial planning in our society, here in the family law support context:

[26] The motion judge carefully considered the parties’ full circumstances, including that the parties’ net worths are similar. The motion judge referred to s. 19(e) of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: The Revised User’s Guide (Ottawa: Department of Justice, 2016) to the effect that a payor’s retirement has an impact on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines analysis:

Eventually, as we get old enough, we all have to “live off our capital”, to draw down our capital resources to pay for our current needs, especially those without pensions. RRSPs have to be converted into RRIFs (Registered Retirement Income Funds) or annuities. Businesses and farms have to be sold. Interest from investments becomes insufficient to fund daily needs.

See also Schulstad v. Schulstad, 2017 ONCA 95, 91 R.F.L. (7th) 84, at paras. 52, 60.

[27] The motion judge also considered Boston v. Boston, 2001 SCC 43, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 413, at para. 54, where the Supreme Court of Canada explained that, under a compensatory spousal support order, where a pension is equalized by way of a lump sum payment, the recipient has an obligation to use the assets equalized between the parties in an income-producing way for use upon the payor’s retirement.