The respondent husband brought a motion to reduce an interim spousal support order of $16,848 per month to $7,000 per month, arguing a substantial change in circumstances due to business losses and capital erosion.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the original interim order explicitly anticipated the husband would need to encroach on capital to maintain the marital standard of living due to his failure to provide adequate financial disclosure.
The court held that the heavy onus to vary a temporary order was not met and that final financial determinations should be left to the impending trial.
