Philip Epstein

On a motion for interim spousal support arising from a lengthy unmarried cohabitation, the court found a prima facie case that the claimant was a spouse within the meaning of the Family Law Act and had entitlement to support.

The court held that interim support could rest on both a compensatory element and, more importantly, a non-compensatory needs basis measured against the parties' highly extravagant lifestyle and the payor's substantial means.

The court further held that support should presumptively commence when notice of the claim was given and ordered retroactive interim support from April 26, 2012.

After considering gross-up principles under the Child Support Guidelines and the discretionary use of the SSAG in a high-income case, the court fixed interim support at $25,000 per month until trial.

The appellant challenged an order refusing to stay an Ontario application for spousal support and a beneficial ownership declaration respecting Ontario cottage properties.

Applying the real and substantial connection framework, the court held that Ontario had jurisdiction because the property was located in Ontario and the parties were ordinarily resident in Ontario as well as Florida during the final years of the relationship.

The court further held that the appellant failed to establish that Florida was clearly the more appropriate forum, including because the respondent would lose a legitimate juridical advantage on support under Florida law.

Ontario law was also properly applied to both the unjust enrichment and support claims.