“For some time, cases suggested that there was limited jurisdiction under s. 17 [of the Divorce Act] to make temporary changes to a final order for support: see for example Andries v. Andries, 1998 CanLII 14093 (MB CA), [1998] M.J. No. 196 (C.A.) and Vipond v. Vipond, [1990] O.J. No. 3292 (S.C.J.). There have been cases since then which suggest that there is jurisdiction to change support orders on a temporary basis. In Hayes v. Hayes, 2010 ONSC 3650 for example, Spies J. suggested that a support order could be temporarily varied on the same basis for which a stay could be granted (prima facie case; urgency; hardship) and in Berta v. Berta, 2019 ONSC 505, Kurz J. suggested further refined the test for an interim variation to add a further requirement for the moving party to have clean hands. Therefore, the cases now state that, for there to be a temporary change in support, the moving party must address four issues:
-
-
-
-
-
- Is there a good prima faciecase for a variation of support;
- Would continuation of support result in a hardship to the payor?
- Is the matter sufficiently urgent to vary support on a temporary basis; and
- Does the moving party come to court with clean hands?”
-
-
-
-
Raaflaub v. Gonosch, 2020 ONSC 1578 (CanLII) at 7