“It is trite to say that on a motion for interim spousal support, the intent is to address hardship or inequity between the parties on a means and needs basis; it is not a place to conduct an exhaustive analysis as to the quantum of spousal support. As mentioned above, this is largely because spousal support can involve a complicated analysis of a number of factors and it is inappropriate to conduct that type of analysis on the basis of conflicting affidavits after one hour of argument on a busy motions day. The court must base its decision on mostly uncontested facts that are either common ground or unquestioned; otherwise, the court must be cautious about going beyond a means and needs analysis in determining spousal support.
This means that the SSAGs become increasingly important at an interim motion, as the ranges are based upon the length of cohabitation and income, factors that are often easy to determine at an interim motion. The case law confirms that the SSAGs should be applied on a motion for a temporary order as in the present case: see M.(D.R.) v. M.(R.B.), 2006 BCSC 1921 (CanLII), 2006 CarswellBC 3177, [2006] B.C.J. No. 3299 (S.C.) at para. 10 and Decker v. Fedorsen, supra at para. 28. In Decker, Sherr J. cites Robles v. Kuhn, 2009 BSCS 1163 (Master) for the following principles concerning an award of temporary spousal support:
-
-
-
-
- On interim support motions, needs and ability take on greater significance.
- On interim motions, the need to achieve self-sufficiency is of less importance.
- Interim support should be ordered within the SSAG (Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines) range unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise.
- Interim support should only be ordered where aprima facie case for entitlement has been set out.
-
-
-