“Given that the applicant is also claiming temporary spousal support, an alternate approach of reaching a fair and just determination of quantum of spousal support (since entitlement is conceded) is looking at the parties’ “means and needs”.
In Vermeire v. Bates, 2022 ONSC 1278 at para. 8 and 9, Fowler Byrne J. summarized the law in respect of interim spousal support as follows:
[8] My authority to award interim spousal support order is found at s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.). The factors and objectives that I must consider under ss. 15.2(4) and 15.2(6) do not differentiate between interim and permanent spousal support orders. That being said, in Damaschin-Zamfirescu v. Damaschin-Zamfirescu, 2012 ONSC 6689, at para. 24, Justice Chappel sets out the general principles that apply when dealing with motions for temporary spousal support (citations omitted):
1. The party claiming temporary 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.
2. 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.
3. The court is not required to carry out a complete and detailed inquiry into all aspects and details of the case, or 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.
4. The primary goal of interim spousal support is to provide income for dependent spouses from the time the proceedings are commenced until the trial. Interim support is meant to be in the nature of a “holding order” to, insomuch as possible, maintain the accustomed lifestyle pending trial.
5. 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. The objective of encouraging self sufficiency is of less importance.
In Driscoll v. Driscoll, 2009 CanLII 66373 (Ont. S.C.), Justice Lemon adopted the principles for temporary spousal support as set out in the British Columbia case of Robles v. Kohn, 2009 BCSC 1163:
a) On applications for interim support the applicant’s needs and the respondent’s ability to pay assume greater significance;
b) 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;
c) 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;
d) The courts should not unduly emphasize any one of the statutory considerations above others;
e) On interim applications the need to achieve economic self-sufficiency is often of less significance;
f) Interim support should be ordered within the range suggested by the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines unless exceptional circumstances indicate otherwise;
g) Interim support should only be ordered where it can be said a prima facie case for entitlement has been made out;
h) 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.”