September 13, 2022 – Interim Support: Basic Principles

“An interim support award is a temporary order only and inevitably imperfect. Cardoso v. Cardoso, 2013 ONSC 5092.  It is meant to provide “a reasonably acceptable solution to a difficult problem until trial”: see Chaitas v. Christopoulos, 2004 CanLII 66352 (ON SC), [2004] O.J. No. 907 (S.C.J.) per Sachs J.

The Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines are intended to apply to interim orders as well as final orders. Traditionally, interim spousal support was based upon a needs-and-means analysis, assessed through budgets, current and proposed expenses, etc. All of that can be avoided with the SSAG formulas, apart from exceptional cases: Carol Rogerson & Rollie Thompson, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: The Revised User’s Guide (Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 2016), p. 15.

I adopt the following principles as set out by Vogelsang, J. in King v. King, 2016 ONSC 5264 (SCJ) at para. 11:

          1.   On applications for interim support the applicant’s needs and the respondent’s ability to pay assume greater significance;
          2. An interim support order should be sufficient to allow the applicant to continue living at the same standard of living enjoyed prior to separation if the payor’s ability to pay warrants it;
          3.   On interim support applications the court does not embark on an in-depth analysis of the parties’ circumstances which is better left to trial. The court achieves rough justice at best;
          4.  The courts should not unduly emphasize any one of the statutory considerations above others;
          5. On interim applications the need to achieve economic self-sufficiency is often of less significance;
          6.   Interim support should be ordered within the range suggested by the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines unless exceptional circumstances indicate otherwise;
          7.    Interim support should only be ordered where it can be said a prima facie case for entitlement has been made out; and
          8.  Where there is a need to resolve contested issues of fact, especially those connected with a threshold issue, such as entitlement, it becomes less advisable to order interim support.”

         Montoya v. Arroyo, 2019 ONSC 5335 (CanLII) at 2-4