Security for Support in Rolland v. Rolland

Not every decision from the Court is long and detailed. Some decisions are short and unequivocal.¬†Rolland v. Rolland¬†from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice is one of those short and unequivocal decisions. In this decision, Justice McIsaac confirmed that a court is entitled to require a spouse to secure support with life insurance, and that it is the payor who pays for it. The applicant who was the payor in this case suggested that the parties share the cost on a 50/50 basis because their notional incomes were equal. The respondent maintained that the applicant should be fully responsible for it because it was his obligation. Justice McIsacc found it disingenuous on the part of the applicant payor to suggest that the respondent partly fund the security obtained to secure the applicant’s obligation. He concluded that this argument made no sense in law or logic and ordered that the applicant alone obtain, maintain and fully fund the security.
Categories