The applicant father brought a motion seeking spousal support from the respondent mother.
The respondent brought a cross‑motion seeking dismissal of the motion, child support and s. 7 expenses, and to impute additional income to the applicant.
The court found the applicant established both compensatory and non‑compensatory entitlement to spousal support under the Divorce Act, noting the significant income disparity and his contributions to the respondent’s education and career development.
Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, the court ordered interim spousal support in the mid‑range.
The court reduced the applicant’s contribution to s. 7 expenses to $300 monthly, finding the respondent’s claimed private school and extensive extracurricular costs unreasonable relative to the applicant’s means, and declined to impute income due to insufficient evidence.
