The respondent wife brought a motion seeking spousal support and the immediate sale of the matrimonial home.
The request for sale was abandoned due to lack of court jurisdiction as the husband was the sole owner.
The applicant husband opposed spousal support, citing short cohabitation, the wife's extended residence in Africa during the marriage, alleged non-disclosure of bank accounts, and her ownership of properties in Africa.
The court found that the marriage had an economic impact on the wife's career and that the husband had a financial obligation due to an immigration sponsorship agreement.
The court ordered the husband to pay spousal support of $800 per month, exceeding the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, to meet the wife's transitional needs and prevent reliance on social assistance.
