What is the effect of a judge's decision to order periodic child support payments rather than lump sum payments?

The judge’s decision to order periodic rather than lump sum child support is entitled to considerable deference: Hickey at para. 11; Parrett v. Parrett, 2016 BCCA 151 at para. 15. Nevertheless, I would allow the respondent’s appeal. There are two reasons for doing so. First, although the judge recognized that the appellant had not complied with court orders and had a history of non-disclosure, he was of the view that he could not find that the appellant was in default of support payments given that they had been paid, as ordered, out of the Sowden proceeds. I am of the view that the judge erred in principle in reaching that conclusion. The fact that the Sowden proceeds were used to fund the support payments meant that the appellant was not in arrears at the time of trial, but those funds are now gone. The evidence at trial does not support a conclusion that the appellant is likely to voluntarily make support payments in the future. Indeed, he has continued on appeal to pursue the same arguments he made at trial about his level of income and inability to work.