“In awarding a quantum of interim spousal support, this Court is cognizant of the multi-faceted purposes for the awarding of spousal support and the determination of the quantum of spousal support recognized in the case law and in our legislation. While basic need alone may have been determinative of the quantum of interim spousal support at one time in our legal history that is certainly not the case today. The Court must keep in mind all of the purposes enunciated in subsection 33(8) and (9) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 as amended. Similar purposes are enunciated in subsection 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.3 (2nd Supp.) as amended.
In the face of those enunciated legislative principles, I am persuaded that Mr. and Ms. Denofrio ought to enjoy similar lifestyles which is currently not the case given the great and substantial disparity of the financial resources available to each of them. In this regard, I agree with the statement of Madam Justice Roccamo in Lakhani v. Lakhani, 2003 CanLII 2161 (ON SC), [2003] O.J. No.4041, that “in circumstances where ability to pay is not an issue, the parties should have the financial ability to enjoy a similar lifestyle, regardless of whether they do in fact choose to enjoy such a lifestyle.” On the facts of this case, given the substantial monies received by Mr. Denofrio upon the sale of his business and even taking account of his high care costs, his ability to pay spousal support to Ms. Denofrio is not in issue.”