Julian Lipkowski

The applicant spouse brought an urgent motion before a case conference seeking interim spousal support, interim child support, and an $8,000 advance on a potential equalization payment.

The respondent agreed to pay guideline child support but disputed the quantum of spousal support and opposed the advance.

The court held that while the applicant had prima facie entitlement to interim spousal support under s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act, the respondent’s financial obligations—including payment of substantial joint family debt and higher accommodation expenses—significantly reduced his ability to pay.

The court determined that strict adherence to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines is not mandatory on interim motions and must be balanced against the parties’ means and needs.

Interim spousal support was set at $700 per month and the request for an advance on equalization was refused.

The applicant sought to vary a separation agreement dated February 15, 2000 to obtain full and frank financial disclosure from the respondent, to impute income to the respondent, and to determine child support for three children based on his actual income.

The respondent sought to dismiss the claim but alternatively sought credit for overpayments, contribution to section 7 expenses, and child support from the applicant for their son who moved in with him in December 2010.

The court found a change in circumstances warranting variation, determined the respondent's income by imputing corporate income and adding back unreasonable business expenses, made a retroactive award of child support to 2008, and ordered ongoing support for two children including an adult child attending post-secondary education beyond the age of 23 specified in the agreement.