What is the case law on equalization of spousal support where the payee spouse is seeking to sell or leave the matrimonial home?

S.M. asserts that her income as a teacher is not sufficient to maintain her in a manner anywhere close to that which the family unit enjoyed prior to the separation. In order to retire as the family originally planned, she will have to continue to build her retirement funds. Allowing S.M. to remain in the family home at R[…] is a reasonable way to help her maintain her former standard of life. She submits that it is not reasonable to sell the home to support herself. In Boston v. Boston, 2001 SCC 43, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 413, Major J. wrote for the majority as follows: 58 The obligation of the payee spouse to generate investment income from the assets that she received on equalization is not an onerous one. It is not predicated upon insensitive standards on how the payee spouse should have managed her finances from the point of separation. Nor does it require investment-savvy decisions, premised upon an extensive knowledge of the marketplace. The obligation on the payee spouse to generate income from her assets would be satisfied by investing in a capital depleting income fund which would provide a regular annual income. 59 When spousal support plays a compensatory role on marriage breakdown, it may be unreasonable to expect the payee spouse to generate investment income from the matrimonial home. As far as is practicable, the support payments should provide a level of income sufficient to maintain a lifestyle that is comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage. The ability to remain in the matrimonial home usually assists the payee spouse and the children in maintaining their previous lifestyle. 60 Each case depends on its own facts. Generally, the payee spouse would not be expected to sell or leave the matrimonial home, particularly if there are dependent children. However, in cases where the support order is based mostly on need as opposed to compensation, different considerations apply. It is not impossible to envisage circumstances where the value of the family home has become disproportionate to the means of the parties so that equity requires that it be sold and replaced appropriately. Such considerations do not arise in this appeal as the support agreement was mainly compensatory.