“The legislative criteria under the Divorce Act for granting temporary spousal support orders is identical to those relating to a final support order. However, the following general principles are applied by the courts in dealing with motions for temporary spousal support:
a. The party claiming interim spousal support has the onus of establishing that there is a triable (prima facie)case, both with respect to entitlement and quantum. The merits of the case in its entirety are to be dealt with at trial: Kowalski v. Grant, 2007 MBQB 235 (CanLII), 2007 CarswellMan 422 (Man. Q.B.); Charbonneau v. Charbonneau, 2004 CarswellOnt 5211 (Ont. S.C.J.); Robles v. Kuhn, 2009 BCSC 1163 (CanLII), 2009 CarswellBC 2239 (B.C. Master).
b. In the event that a spousal support claimant cannot establish an arguable case for entitlement to spousal support, the motion for temporary relief should be dismissed, even if the claimant has need and the other party has the ability to pay: Belcourt v. Chartrand,2006 CarswellOnt 2272 (Ont. S.C.J.); Gerlitz v. Gerlitz, 2005 CarswellAlta 1841 (Alta. C.A.), reversing in part 2005 CarswellAlta 1240 (Alta. Q.B.).
c. The primary goal of interim spousal support is to provide income for dependent spouses from the time the proceedings are commenced until the trial: Kowalski v. Grant, 2007 MBQB 235 (CanLII), 2007 CarswellMan 422 (Man. Q.B.). Interim support is meant to be in the nature of a “holding order” to, insomuch as possible, maintain the accustomed lifestyle pending trial: Ibid.
d. The court is not required to carry out a complete and detailed inquiry into all aspects and details of the case to determine the extent to which either party suffered economic advantage or disadvantage as a result of the relationship or its breakdown. That task is for the trial judge: Ibid.
e. Assuming that a triable case exists, interim support is to be based primarily on the motion judge’s assessment of the parties’ means and needs: Lila v. Lila, 1986 CarswellOnt 294 (Ont. C.A.).; Kowalski v. Grant,Supra.; Robles v. Kuhn, Supra. The objective of encouraging self sufficiency is of less importance: Robles v. Kuhn, Ibid.; Ridgeway-Firman v. Firman, 1999 CarswellOnt. 1201 (Ont. Gen. Div.).