“The Divorce Act has recently been amended with those amendments coming into force March 1, 2021. However, insofar as the provisions relating to spousal support are concerned, the provisions of the amended legislation are for all intents and purposes similar to the previous legislation.
Therefore, the case law which has evolved up until February 28, 2021 is still relevant.
In the case of Roebles v. Kuhn 2009 BCSC 1163, there was an enumeration of a list of principles that govern an interim spousal support motion namely:
a) 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 the separation;
c) the Court should 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) interim support should be ordered within the range suggested by the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines unless exceptional circumstances indicate otherwise;
e) interim support should only be ordered where it can be said a prima facie case for entitlement has been made out;
f) 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.
In addition, in the case of Samis v Samis 2011 ONCJ 273, Justice Sherr added the following considerations to be taken into account namely:
(i) interim support was to provide an income for the dependent spouse until trial
(ii) the court need not conduct a complete inquiry into all aspects to determine the extent to which either party suffered economic advantage or disadvantage as a result of the relationship. That is to be left to the trial judge.
(iii) Interim support is a holding order to maintain the accustomed lifestyle if possible
(iv) interim support is to be based on the parties means and needs. The merits of the case in its entirety must await a final hearing.
Siegel-Nudelman v. Nudelman, 2021 ONSC 3064 (CanLII) at 54-57