What is the impact of a lump sum award at an arbitration?

The arbitrator recognized the need to take into consideration future contingencies. That is identified at ¶ 311(c) of the first award. Those which he identified include possible disadvantages of a lump sum award, too. See also Davis v. Crawford ¶ 68. The arbitrator was not required to direct a further hearing for more evidence or additional submissions, just because the parties decided to ask for a lump sum at the end of the arbitration after adducing the evidence they chose to call.

It was open to the arbitrator to select a retirement age of 65.5, based on the evidence that was before him, and the submissions. His reasoning for so doing is identified at ¶ 351-355 of the first award. The standard of review for a support order (or in this case a support award) is well known. A trier hearing a spousal support case must consider the various objectives, factors and criteria in the Divorce Act and apply them to the context of, and the facts of the case. That process also involves the exercise of discretion. Because of its fact based and discretionary nature, the arbitrator is entitled to “considerable deference” by an appellate court. Support orders should not be overturned unless, “...the reasons disclose an error in principle, a significant misapprehension of the evidence, or unless the award is clearly wrong. See Hickey v. Hickey ¶ 10, 11.