May 19, 2026 – Interim Support Orders

“Both counsel accept that the decision of Harvison Young J (as she then was) in Politis v Politis, 2015 ONSC 5997, summarizes well the prevailing law:

1. 1. 1. 1. 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 SSAGs unless exceptional circumstances indicate otherwise.
            7. Interim support should only be ordered where it can be said a prima faciecase for entitlement has been made out; and
            8. Where there is a need to resolve contested issues of fact, especially those connected to a threshold issue, such as entitlement, it becomes less advisable to order interim support.”

Vali-Farhad v. Haeri, 2023 ONSC 3032 (CanLII) at 4