Cameron v. Cameron, 2024 ONSC 5783: Key Takeaways for Ontario Family Law Practitioners

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s decision in Cameron v. Cameron, 2024 ONSC 5783, released October 21, 2024, offers a detailed playbook for family law lawyers navigating spousal support duration, retroactive adjustments, and section 7 expense claims. Justice J.R. Henderson’s ruling tackles a payor’s retirement against a recipient’s post-separation disability, while exposing administrative challenges with the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) and the high bar for retroactive claims. Here’s what Ontario practitioners need to glean from this case.

Case Overview

David and Susan Cameron separated in January 2009 after 18 years and 4 months of cohabitation (April 1990–January 2009), excluding a 20-month separation from December 1991 to April 1992. David, a Dofasco employee with peak earnings of $153,255–$154,382 (2022–2023), sought to terminate spousal support upon his retirement on December 31, 2024, after 16 years of payments.

Susan, disabled since a 2013 motor vehicle accident and living on ~$2,000/year, argued for indefinite support. The court also addressed over $19,000 in undistributed FRO funds, $5,040 in support arrears, and section 7 education expenses for three of their four children.

Spousal Support: Duration and Disability

Justice Henderson rejected David’s bid to cap spousal support at 16 years, extending it to April 30, 2027—matching the 18-year-and-4-month cohabitation period.

Citing Bracklow v. Bracklow, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420, the Court leaned on non-compensatory support, driven by Susan’s post-separation disability, which left her unemployable despite a denied CPP disability claim (para. 21).

Key Takeaways:

• Cohabitation Benchmark: The “general rule” (duration ≤ cohabitation) held, but exceptions for disability, dependency, and payor capacity justified the full term (para. 17).
• Retirement Context: David’s reasonable retirement at 65, reducing his income from $138,000 (2024) to $74,000, warranted lower payments, not termination (para. 25).

Practice Tip:

• For payors nearing retirement, caution that disability can override cohabitation-based cutoffs—the husband request for a 16-year term argument fell flat.
• For recipients, robust medical evidence is non-negotiable; The wife’s accident injuries and CPP denial were decisive.
• Double-check cohabitation timelines—a five-month post-separation period under one roof was excluded as “separate and apart” (para. 29).

Spousal Support: Retroactive and Prospective Adjustments

Using Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) mid-range figures, the Court recalibrated support:

Justice Henderson dismissed the wife’s proposal to lag calculations by two years (e.g., 2022 income for 2024), opting for a one-year delay (2022 income for 2023) for timeliness (para. 32).

Arrears of $5,040 were ordered for 2023–2024 underpayments ($195/month x 12 + $225/month x 12).

Practice Tip:

• Prompt income disclosure is crucial—the husband’s income spikes triggered retroactive hikes.
• Recipients should advocate for SSAG mid- or high-range figures where dependency is pronounced, but courts generally favor mid-range in non-compensatory cases.
• The deferred lump sum option (para. 40) invites strategic planning—prepare actuarial evidence if pursuing this path.

Lump Sum Payments

The Court left open the possibility of converting periodic support to a lump sum, scheduling further submissions (para. 50(9)).

Unlike periodic payments (tax-deductible for the payor, taxable for the recipient), lump sums are typically non-deductible and non-taxable.

FRO Funds: Administrative Pitfalls

The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) held $19,000+ in undisbursed support funds because it failed to differentiate child and spousal support post-2023 order.

Practice Tip:

• Monitor FRO disbursements closely—delays left the wife without crucial support for six months.
• Submit written payment designations to the FRO alongside court orders to prevent similar issues.

Section 7 Expenses: Evidentiary Rigor

Practice Tip:

• Retroactive section 7 claims require ironclad evidence.
• The wife’s success with one childs section 7 expenses hinged on RESP records, while the other s claims failed due to lack of proof.

Broader Implications

• Disability Post-Separation: Bracklow’s non-compensatory lens remains potent—disability need not arise during marriage to extend support, though finite terms are preferred over indefinite awards.
• Retirement Planning: Payors cannot rely on retirement as an automatic cutoff—courts balance recipient needs against reduced capacity.
• Lump Sum Flexibility: The court’s openness to a lump sum signals adaptability—practitioners should explore this where tax or finality benefits align.

Conclusion

Cameron v. Cameron reinforces core principles—cohabitation as a duration guide, SSAG as a quantum tool, and evidence as a gatekeeper—while spotlighting practical challenges like FRO inefficiencies.

For Ontario family lawyers, this case underscores the interplay of fairness, capacity, and proof in securing equitable outcomes.

Connect with us on LinkedIn.

Legal Disclaimer: See Privacy Policy

Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog post is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. Consult with a qualified family law attorney for advice regarding your specific situation. Goldhart Mediation & Arbitration is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information presented in this blog.