“Principles the court would examine in determining interim spousal support motions include:
(a) The recipient’s needs of a payor’s ability to pay are seen as a greater significance;
(b) The interim order would attempt to be sufficient to allow the recipient to continue living at a same standard of living prior to separation if the payor’s income ability to pay also allows it;
(c) The court should not embark on an in depth analysis of a party’s circumstances. This should be left to trial. At best, the court achieves a form of rough justice;
(d) The court would not over or unduly emphasize any one of the statutory conditions as set out above;
(e) The need to achieve self-sufficiency is often of less significance;
(f) The interim spousal support amount ordered may be within the range as suggested by the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (“SSAG”) unless exceptional circumstances indicate a variance from those guidelines;
(g) Interim support may be ordered when it can be said a prima facie case for entitlement exists; and
(h) Whether there is a need to resolve uncontested issues of fact, especially those connected with the threshold question such as entitlement, it becomes less than advisable for a court to make an interim order for support.
The above listed is not an exhaustive list but is an indication of what principles the court should look at in determining spousal support on a contextual analysis.”