What is the test for a lump sum maintenance order?

In Osborne v. Osborne (1973), 1973 CanLII 1927 (SK QB), 14 R.F.L. 61, Disbery, J., cautioned that the court’s discretion in awarding lump sum maintenance, as wide as it is, “must be exercised judicially and not capriciously or impulsively”, and that it must be exercised “for the attainment of one purpose only, namely, the provision of proper maintenance”. I endorse that comment as an accurate statement of the law. A maintenance order, whether lump sum or periodic payment, must not be employed to redistribute capital assets. It is not to be used to reward virtue or to punish vice. Its sole purpose is to provide sustenance according to need and ability to pay.