“The general principles guiding the exercise of the court’s discretion when dealing with support pending trial were summarized by Penny J. in Knowles v. Lindstrom, 2015 ONSC 1408 (CanLII):
It is well-established that interim support motions are not intended to involve a detailed examination of the merits of the case. Nor is the court required to determine the extent to which either party suffered economic advantage or disadvantage as a result of the relationship or its breakdown. These tasks are for the trial judge. Orders for interim support are based on a triable or prima facie case. An order for interim support is in the nature of a “holding order” for the purpose of maintaining the accustomed lifestyle pending trial, Jarzebinski v. Jarzebinski, 2004 CarswellOnt 4600 (ONSC) at para. 36; Damaschin-Zamfirescu v. Damaschin-Zamfirescu, 2012 ONSC 6689 (CanLII), 2012 CarswellOnt 14841 (ONSC) at para. 24.
During submissions, the meaning of prima facie was discussed. Counsel for the Applicant argues that it is a lessor standard than balance of probabilities. Counsel for the Respondent argues that it is higher.
Prima facie is defined in the Blacks Law Dictionary as: “At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary.” Accordingly, prima facie is a standard higher than balance of probabilities.”