Meghan de Souza

The applicant spouse brought a motion for interim spousal support and ancillary procedural relief including an extension of time to set the matter down for trial and leave to amend the statement of claim to plead constructive trust.

The court considered the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines but emphasized that a means and needs analysis based on actual income and expenses remained critical.

Both parties’ budgets were scrutinized and adjusted to reflect reasonable expenses and resources.

The court determined that the applicant spouse had a monthly shortfall while the respondent spouse had a surplus capacity to pay.

Interim spousal support of $1,020 per month was ordered together with procedural relief extending the trial timetable and permitting amendment of the pleadings.

In an uncontested family law application between former common-law partners, the applicant sought custody of a minor child, child support and arrears, a restraining order, exclusive possession of the jointly owned home, and financial disclosure.

The court granted custody and ordered ongoing child support based on imputed income where the respondent’s current income was unknown.

Retroactive support for an adult child was refused as the child was no longer entitled to support.

Claims for a restraining order and exclusive possession of the home were dismissed, as the property was not a matrimonial home under the Family Law Act and the evidence did not establish unjust enrichment to support a constructive trust.

Annual financial disclosure was ordered.

The moving party brought a motion for interim relief within a motion to change a final order, seeking an increase in spousal support from $590 per month to approximately $1,500 per month pending determination of the variation application.

The moving party, suffering from advanced Parkinson’s disease and unable to work, argued that the responding party’s increased income and his ongoing need justified an interim increase.

The court reviewed the governing principles for interim variation of final support orders, including the requirement to establish a prima facie case for variation together with hardship or urgency.

Although the responding party’s income had increased modestly, the court found no evidence of increased expenses or uncovered medical costs and concluded that the threshold test was not met.

The motion for interim variation was therefore dismissed.