Can periodic orders of support sustain a provision for security against property?

[138] In Singh v. Singh,[13] after confirming that periodic orders of support could sustain a provision for security against property, Mazza J. listed the criteria for the court’s consideration in exercising its discretion under the above noted section as follows: (a) where a party has a history of dissipation of assets, that is, unable to handle money; (b) where the party is likely to leave the jurisdiction and become, in effect, an absconding debtor; (c) where the party has, in the past, refused to honour a support obligation, whether it came by court order or contract or has refused to provide support at all; (d) where the party has a poor employment history, or has indicated that he or she, will leave their employment.