I reject the husband’s submissions that an award of interim spousal support should be determined strictly on the basis of need as per this Court’s decision in Lemieux v. Lemieux, [2000] O. J. No. 2512 (QL) (S.C.J.). I note that in Lemieux v Lemieux, supra, Justice Blishen was provided limited evidence on which to resolve numerous legal and factual issues raised by the parties with respect to the needs and the abilities of the parties. In the case before me, I was supplied with ample evidence that the husband was capable of paying spousal support from at least June 14, 2000, in addition to child support in excess of the amounts he has voluntarily paid both before and since the order of Justice Polowin. I rely upon the reasoning of the Court in Cradduck v Cradduck (2000), 2000 CanLII 22433 (ON SC), 11 R.F.L. (5th) 54 (Ont. S C.J.) as support for the proposition that the traditional approach to interim support based on established need and ability to pay is not always an approach that is fair and just in the circumstances. I agree with the dicta in that case that, in circumstances such as these 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. I would add that the Supreme Court of Canada concluded in Bracklow v Bracklow (1999), 169 O.L.R. (3d) 577 (S.C.C.) that need was but one factor to consider in the award of spousal support under the Divorce Act, supra.”