My Son Should Pay: Why the Court Refused to Shift Spousal Support to an Adult Child

If an adult child is already helping a parent financially, can the other parent insist that the child take over their spousal support obligation? And does receiving a substantial property settlement mean that a spouse no longer needs support?

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered these issues in S.G. v. V.G. and P.G., 2026 ONSC 6200, released November 2, 2026. The parties’ names are abbreviated in this article.

The husband accepted that his wife was entitled to spousal support. However, he argued that he could not afford to pay and that their adult son should pay instead. Justice Wassenaar rejected that argument and ordered the husband to pay ongoing and retroactive spousal support.

The Family’s Financial Dispute

The spouses married in 1993 and separated in July 2019. They had one son, who was 31 at the time of trial.

The family owned several investment properties, and disputes arose over properties transferred to the son and financial assistance he had provided. The spouses settled their equalization and property issues before trial, subject to outstanding post-separation adjustments. Spousal support remained unresolved.

Against that background, the husband sought an order requiring the son to pay the wife $4,000 per month.

Why the Son Was Not Ordered to Pay Spousal Support

The husband relied on an alleged promise by the son to support his mother. He also invoked section 32 of Ontario’s Family Law Act, which addresses an adult child’s obligation to support a parent in certain circumstances.

Neither argument succeeded.

The wife had not sought support from her son. The husband had not properly pleaded a claim under section 32, and the court found no basis to use the alleged promise to transfer his spousal support obligation.

The court also pointed to section 15.2 of the Divorce Act, which permits an order requiring one spouse to support the other. As Justice Wassenaar observed:

“the son is not a spouse, and the mother is not the son’s spouse.”

A parent’s claim for support from an adult child is a separate legal issue. Here, the court refused to transfer the husband’s obligation. The broader disputes over the property transfers were stayed.

A Lower Reported Income Did Not Settle the Calculation

The husband asked the court to calculate support using an annual income of $60,000. His 2025 T4 showed approximately that amount, and he said health problems had required him to reduce his working hours.

The court acknowledged his health issues but used an annual income of $90,000 for ongoing support.

That conclusion reflected several factors: his earnings history, his own affidavit, concerns about the reliability of his financial evidence, and evidence that remote work and workplace accommodations could assist him.

The wife’s income also required scrutiny. She reported no employment income and relied on health limitations affecting her ability to work. The court accepted that she could not work full time, but found that her varied work experience supported imputing a modest income of $10,000 per year.

The support calculation reflected the evidence about both spouses’ circumstances and earning capacity.

Why the Property Settlement Did Not End the Support Claim

The court found both a compensatory and a needs-based basis for support.

The wife had taken primary responsibility for the household and their son when he was young. Although she was receiving a significant equalization payout, the court found that it would largely be consumed by her housing costs.

On these facts, receiving capital through the property settlement did not eliminate her entitlement to spousal support.

Using incomes of $90,000 and $10,000, the court selected the middle of the calculated support range: $2,917 per month for an indefinite period, beginning November 3, 2026.

An indefinite order has no fixed end date. It remains subject to the applicable rules governing variation as circumstances change.

Why the Court Refused a Lump-Sum Payment

The wife sought $531,154 in prospective lump-sum support, with an alternative proposal combining a lump sum and monthly payments. She argued that a clean break was appropriate and raised concerns that the husband might relocate.

The court explained that a lump sum does not require “very unusual circumstances”, but its advantages and disadvantages must be weighed. Here, it would consume a large portion of the husband’s available capital, and both spouses had ongoing health issues.

The court ordered monthly payments, which would better accommodate future changes in their means and needs.

Retroactive Support Required Its Own Analysis

The wife sought $153,564 in retroactive support dating back to March 2022.

The court did not simply adopt that date. It found that the necessary legal analysis supporting the earlier start date had not been provided, and awarded retroactive support from November 2023, when the husband commenced his application and acknowledged her entitlement.

After calculating support for the relevant periods and crediting $7,500 paid in 2024 and $36,000 released from the husband’s share of property proceeds in 2025, the court ordered $62,598 in retroactive spousal support.

The start date was specific to the record and arguments in this case. The decision does not establish that retroactive support always begins when an application is filed.

The judgment also ordered the wife to pay $50,400 in occupation rent and certain property expenses. Those were separate orders from the spousal support awards.

Spousal Support Lawyer Ottawa

Disputes about income, health, property settlements and past payments can significantly affect a spousal support claim. A proposed calculation is only as useful as the evidence and legal analysis supporting it.

Davies & Maxim LLP assists with spousal support negotiations and court proceedings. Contact our Ottawa family law office to discuss your rights and obligations.