Separating Without Cutting Off a Son's Disability Support

The situation

Cristina had worked as a court clerk for most of her marriage to Rosario, a real estate agent whose income moved with the local market. After twenty-two years together in Parry Sound, they separated, aiming to divide their household without a court fight. The math looked ordinary on paper: a mortgaged home worth around $520,000 with about $180,000 left owing, a small defined-benefit pension Cristina had built up through her court employment, and combined household income that had run somewhere between $90,000 and $140,000 depending on the year.

What made this separation different was their son, Abdi, twenty-four, who lives with a permanent disability and receives support through the Ontario Disability Support Program, known as ODSP. He had lived with Cristina since the couple began living apart, and both parents wanted to keep contributing to his care. Neither had thought carefully about how an inheritance, a lump-sum gift, or even certain kinds of support payments could interact with the rules that kept his monthly benefit and drug coverage in place.

The legal problem

ODSP is both income-tested and asset-tested. A person receiving it is allowed to hold only a modest amount of savings and other assets before the program treats them as no longer needing assistance and reduces or cancels the benefit. Cristina and Rosario's instinct — to simply give Abdi a share of the equalization payment or set money aside in his name for a rainy day — would have pushed him over that asset limit almost immediately, cutting off both his monthly income and his drug and dental coverage, which he relies on for ongoing treatment costs their household could not easily absorb on its own.

There was a second layer to the problem. Under the Family Law Act, married spouses in Ontario divide the growth in their net worth during the marriage through a process called equalization, and either spouse can also seek spousal support based on income differences and the length of the marriage. Support for a child can continue past the age of majority where the child cannot become financially independent because of a disability. That meant Abdi's needs had to be addressed both through ongoing support and through however Cristina and Rosario chose to divide what they owned — two separate legal questions that had to be solved together, because a solution to one that ignored the other risked undoing it.

Rosario, meanwhile, needed access to his share of the equity to qualify for financing on a new place of his own, and was not willing to leave his share tied up indefinitely so that Cristina could keep the house for Abdi's sake. Both positions were reasonable. Neither could be fully satisfied without the other giving something up.

What we did

1. Confirmed how ODSP treats gifts, trusts, and support. Our team reviewed the ODSP rules on assets and income with Cristina and Rosario before any numbers were finalized. Direct cash or property given to Abdi outside a proper structure would count against his asset limit. Money placed in a trust set up specifically for the benefit of a person with a disability, however, can generally be held without counting toward that limit, provided the trust is used for purposes ODSP recognizes, such as disability-related expenses rather than basic living costs the program already covers. That distinction became the foundation for everything that followed.
2. Set up a trust for Abdi's share rather than a direct gift. Instead of giving Abdi a lump sum from the equalization proceeds, Cristina and Rosario agreed to direct a portion of their settlement into a trust established for his benefit, with a trustee responsible for spending it on things like specialized equipment, therapy not covered by his drug plan, and future housing costs — the kinds of disability-related expenses that support rather than duplicate his ODSP income.
3. Separated child support for Abdi from spousal support between Cristina and Rosario. We structured Rosario's ongoing contribution toward Abdi as support paid to Cristina as the parent providing his primary care, not as money paid directly to Abdi. This kept it outside ODSP's income test for Abdi while still giving Cristina the resources to cover his day-to-day costs, and it was calculated with reference to his continuing dependence rather than treated as ending automatically once he turned eighteen.
4. Negotiated a staged sale of the home instead of an immediate one. Rosario needed his equity relatively soon; Cristina did not want to uproot Abdi's living arrangement while the rest of the settlement was still being worked out. The compromise was a defined period — long enough for Abdi's housing plan to stabilize — after which the home would be listed and the proceeds split according to their agreed formula, with Cristina paying Rosario an interim amount from her share of other assets to reduce how long he had to wait.
5. Addressed the pension and the pace of full equalization. Cristina's court employment pension was valued as part of the marital property and shared through a set-off against other assets rather than a direct division of the pension itself, which avoided the delay and administrative cost of splitting the pension at source and let Rosario receive his share sooner in cash and equity instead.
6. Documented the whole arrangement in one coordinated separation agreement. Because the trust, the support arrangement, and the property division all depended on each other, each part of the agreement cross-referenced the others, so that no piece could later be interpreted as if it stood alone.

The outcome

Neither side got everything they wanted, which is usually the honest measure of a negotiated settlement rather than a court-imposed one. Rosario accepted a delayed full payout on the home in exchange for an interim payment and a firm end date for the sale, rather than the immediate liquidation he had first asked for. Cristina gave up the idea of keeping the house indefinitely and agreed to a fixed timeline that put real pressure on her to plan Abdi's next housing step rather than leaving it open-ended. There was also friction over the pension set-off: Rosario had initially expected an equal split of every asset line by line, and accepting cash and equity in place of a formal pension division meant trusting the valuation our team and Cristina's accountant had prepared, rather than waiting years for the pension itself to mature.

What both parents did secure was the outcome that mattered most to them: Abdi's ODSP income and drug coverage continued without interruption. The trust held his share of the settlement outside the program's asset test, and the support Rosario paid toward his care flowed through Cristina rather than counting as his own income. Roughly a year after the agreement was signed, the home sold close to its expected value, the proceeds were split as planned, and Abdi's benefits remained exactly where they had been before the separation began — untouched by a process that, handled differently, could easily have put them at risk. Cristina and Rosario still disagree about the pace of the sale to this day, but both say the arrangement did what it needed to do for their son.

What you can learn from this