a judge may choose between the two options, depending on all of
the circumstances of the case. Whether or not a pension is in
pay, the factors set out in s. 10.1(4) provide guidance.
 The appellant’s restrictive interpretation of s. 10.1 potentially compromises an important goal of the FLA — to achieve a
division of assets that is fair to both parties. In Best v. Best,
 2 S.C.R. 868,  S.C.J. No. 40, Major J. said, at para.
109: “The choice of a method for settlement of the equalization
obligation is highly contextual and fact-based. A payment method
that is preferable in one case might be grossly unjust in
another.” The interpretation favoured by the appellant would
undermine this approach by precluding resort to an option
(a lump-sum payment) that may be critical in achieving a fair
and just division of property.
 A broader interpretation s. 10.1(5) of the FLA is more compatible with the PBDA. Returning to the paramountcy jurisprudence, Gascon J. said in Moloney, at para. 27: “It is presumed that
Parliament intends its laws to co-exist with provincial laws.” This
presumption must also apply in reverse, and with at least equal
force — it is presumed that the province intends its laws to
co-exist with federal laws. I am unable to find that the legislature
intended to undermine or limit the operation of the PBDA.
 When Ontario amended the FLA in 2009 to create s. 10.1,
it would surely have known that the PBDA only provides for
a lump-sum division: see Ontario Law Reform Commission,
Report on Pensions as Family Property, at pp. 62, 171-72. See,
also, Law Commission of Ontario, Division of Pensions Upon
Marriage Breakdown — Final Report (Toronto: Law Commission
of Ontario, 2008). As noted in para. 18, above, the PBDA applies
to pensions created by many federal statutes, no doubt affecting
the pensions of countless Ontarians. I would avoid an interpretation of the FLA that frustrates the PBDA. A broader interpretation of s. 10.1(5) advances the goals of the FLA, while
achieving harmony with federal pension legislation.
 This is not say that it will always be appropriate to order
a lump-sum division of a pension in pay. It will depend on the
nature of the underlying pension legislation, the application of
the criteria listed in s. 10.1(4) of the FLA, and “such other matters as the court considers appropriate” to achieve a just result
in the case: see VanderWal v. VanderWal,  O.J. No. 296,
2015 ONSC 384, 54 R.F.L. (7th) 410 (S.C.J.), at para. 9.
(4) Application to this case
 The trial judge did not err in ordering a lump-sum transfer of the appellant’s pension. This method of division involves