Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FS-19-14555

DATE: 20210504

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Ahmed Khan, Applicant

AND:

Maseera Irum, Respondent

BEFORE: Kimmel J.

COUNSEL: Chad D. Rawn, for the Applicant

Julie Amourgis, for the Respondent

HEARD: April 27, 2021

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The Applicant (husband) and Respondent (wife) were married in India on August 25, 2018. Theirs was an arranged marriage. After their wedding, the Applicant returned to Canada and sponsored the Respondent. She arrived on June 14, 2019, as a landed immigrant. They were married for fourteen months prior to their separation and lived together for only five of those months between June and November 2019. This is a motion by the respondent for temporary spousal support.

[2] When the Applicant applied to sponsor the Respondent to come to Canada, he signed a Sponsorship Agreement. The Applicant agreed as follows under that agreement:

a. I undertake to provide for the basic requirements of the sponsored person and his or her family members who accompany him or her to Canada, if they are not self-supporting. I promise to provide food, clothing, shelter, fuel, utilities, household supplies, personal requirements and other goods and services, including dental care, eye care and other health needs not provided by public health care. I understand that the money, goods or services provided by me must be sufficient for the sponsored people to live in Canada.

b. I promise that the sponsored person and his or her family members will not need to apply for social assistance.

c. I understand that all social assistance paid to the sponsored person or his or her family members becomes a debt owed by me to Her Majesty in Right of Canada and Her Majesty in right of the province concerned. As a result, the Minister and the province concerned have a right to take enforcement action against me (as sponsor or co-signer) alone, or against both of us.

d. The Minister and the province concerned may choose not to take enforcement action to recover money from me if the default is the result of abuse or in other circumstances. The decision not to act at a particular time does not cancel the debt. The Minister and the province concerned may recover the debt when circumstances have changed.

[3] As the person to be sponsored, the Respondent promised under the Sponsorship Agreement: “to make every reasonable effort to provide for my own basic requirements as well as those of my accompanying family members; I promise to ask the sponsor and co-signer (if applicable) for help if I or my family members are having difficulty supporting themselves or meeting their own basic requirements.”

[4] The Sponsorship Agreement required the Applicant to provide for the Respondent’s basic requirements for a period of three years, commencing June 14, 2019 and ending June 13, 2022.

[5] After she arrived in Canada, the Respondent was not comfortable living with the Applicant and his family. When she sought assistance from her only other relative in Canada in November 2019, her great-aunt, the Applicant told them both to leave the house. The Respondent had nowhere to live or work and went to a shelter where staff there helped her apply for social assistance. She receives social assistance in the amount of $733.00 per month. To date, the Applicant has not paid her any support.

[6] The Respondent received her Bachelor of Pharmacy degree in India. However, that was not sufficient for her to work in the pharmacy field in Ontario. She had her degree evaluated, and now must take a series of exams, being held about twice yearly. The assessment of her degree cost $675.00. Her first exam cost $870.00. The estimated cost for her remaining exams, internship fees and licencing fees is $3,000.00. The total cost of her retraining and competency assessments is estimated to be $4,545.00, after which she will be able to work as a pharmacy technician in Ontario if she passes.

[7] While completing her retraining and competency assessments and collecting social assistance, the Respondent was restricted in what she could earn from other employment before the earned income would be clawed back by social assistance. In 2020 she worked part-time in a pharmacy, several hours per week, to gain work experience in Canada and to build her resume for future job opportunities. Her total income in 2020 was $12,507.90, including $8,640.16 that she received from social assistance.

[8] The Applicant works for TD Canada Trust as a personal banking associate. In 2019 he earned $47,850.00. There are no income tax filings confirming his 2020 income. He anticipates that his 2021 annual income will be closer to $45,000.00 based on his hourly wage. He also owns a company with his brother that employs their father. The Applicant purchased a condominium unit in 2016 for $244,832.14 and sold it prior to the parties’ separation in 2019 for $475,000.00. He says the net sale proceeds have been paid to his parents. The Applicant also has a pension (not yet being collected) that has been valued at $4,812.12. The Applicant suffers from some serious health issues, although they have not impeded his ability to work full-time.

[9] These are not parties of significant means.

[10] The Respondent is seeking an order for temporary without prejudice spousal support in the sum of $1,500.00 per month plus $415.00 per month as a contribution towards her ongoing education costs.

[11] The Applicant is prepared to pay her $733.00 per month, an amount equivalent to the social assistance she has been receiving. The Applicant argues that this is more than he can afford, having regard to his means and own living expenses. He also contends that the Respondent has been living on this amount for eighteen months, since the parties separated, and thus has not demonstrated a need for more than this amount of support. Further, it is noted that, once she goes off of social assistance the Respondent will no longer need to be concerned about additional earned income being clawed back from her social assistance and she can seek out additional employment.

Issues to be Decided and Analysis

[12] The Applicant concedes that the Respondent is entitled to some spousal support on contractual grounds, arising from the commitments he made under the Sponsorship Agreement.

[13] The sole issues to be decided are: first, the quantum of support. Second, whether the court should decide now, on this interim motion, whether the spousal support should be time limited to coincide with the end of the Applicant’s contractual commitment to support the Respondent under the Sponsorship Agreement.

Guiding Law and Principles for Spousal Support

[14] Pursuant to s. 15.2(1) and (2) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3, once an application has been commenced, the court may make an interim order requiring a spouse to pay such periodic amounts as it thinks reasonable for the support of the other spouse pending the determination of the application.

[15] Section 30 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, imposes an obligation on every spouse to provide support for the other spouse in accordance with need, to the extent that the payor spouse is capable of doing so.

[16] Both the Divorce Act (s. 15.2(6)) and the Family Law Act (s. 33(8)) indicate the objectives that are to be achieved by an order for spousal support to include: i) the recognition of any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown, ii) the relief of any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage, and iii) as far as is practicable, the promotion of the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.

[17] The parties agree that the circumstances of this case are not conducive to analysis under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs) to determine the appropriate amount and duration of spousal support payable by the Applicant to the Respondent. Even based on the high end of the SSAGs, for a marriage of this short duration (fourteen months) and at the Applicant’s reported salary level in 2019 (which he says was lower in 2020), the Respondent would only receive $120.00 per month in spousal support, which is clearly not sufficient.

[18] According to the Respondent’s sworn financial statement, she needs $1,798.53 per month to cover her basic necessities of life (food and clothing and some retraining and competency assessment costs). She is asking the Applicant to pay $1,915.00 per month, which will provide funds to offset some of the taxes that she will pay on spousal support received and other education expenses not in the budget.

[19] This is a classic example of why there are exceptions built into the SSAGs. Where the SSAG formula generates results that are inconsistent with the objectives of the Divorce Act or the Family Law Act, an appropriate result is achieved by departing from the formula, for example:

a. For short marriages, that can involve large compensatory claims that are disproportionate to the length of the marriage (SSAGs, c. 12.5); and

b. Where there is a prior agreement, the SSAGs cannot be used to override an existing agreement (SSAGs, c. 5.2).

[20] In short term marriages, support may be required to alleviate economic loss, such as when one spouse moves across the country (or from another country) to marry and has given up a job or business. These types of circumstances can also bring the situation under the basic needs/hardship exception of the SSAGs. Compelling financial circumstances at the interim stage may dictate a higher amount of support for a transitional period: Divorce Act, s. 15.2(6)(c), and SSAGs, cc. 10.1 and 12.7.

[21] An agreement, such as the Sponsorship Agreement that includes a promise by the Applicant to support the Respondent for three (3) years, is also a relevant factor in deciding spousal support. The existence of such an agreement can create a reasonable expectation that the wife in this case would receive financial assistance from her husband: M. (O.) v. M. (N.E.), 2003 BCPC 99, 40 R.F.L. (5th) 189, and F.Y. v. F.F.G., 2005 MBQB 36, 16 R.F.L. (6th) 420, at para. 43.

[22] The Respondent need only establish a prima facie entitlement to one of these grounds for support on a motion for temporary support: Sandhu v. Dhillon, 2021 ONSC 1143, at paras. 14-15. The Applicant in this case concedes that the Sponsorship Agreement provides a foundation for contractual support payable by him to the Respondent. However, all potential grounds for support should be considered in the analysis as that consideration may inform the determination of the appropriate quantum and duration of the spousal support.

Analysis and Grounds for Support

i) Compensatory Support

[23] Compensatory support is not typically a driving consideration in marriages of short duration. However, when there is a short marriage that involves one spouse having travelled a great distance to be with the other spouse, particularly if that spouse arrives through sponsorship in Canada, the economic consequence for the sponsoree when there is a marriage breakdown have been recognized to be catastrophic: Sandhu, at paras. 19, 31; F.Y., at para. 44.

[24] In such circumstances, it is appropriate for the court to consider and address any economic disadvantage to the Respondent arising from the breakdown of the marriage. The Respondent claims to have suffered a tremendous economic disadvantage from the marriage and marriage breakdown by moving from India to Canada in 2019 without any close family, job or friends here. She has demonstrated that she has been trying to improve her circumstances and become certified to work in Canada in the field of pharmacy, despite having to live on social assistance.

[25] These types of compelling financial circumstances during an interim period of retraining and competency assessment are within the c. 12 exceptions to the SSAGs for short marriages: Sandhu, at paras. 20, 27-31.

[26] The circumstances of this case may justify some compensatory support, but it does not need to be determined at this interim stage, as the contractual and non-compensatory needs and means based analyses provide a sufficient framework for me to determine the quantum and duration of temporary support that the Applicant will pay, discussed below.

ii) Non-compensatory, Means and Needs Based Support

[27] In determining spousal support where the SSAGs do not apply, the courts generally determine the support based on the needs of the recipient and the payor’s ability to pay. The Applicant agrees that the temporary support in this case should be based “on a means and needs analysis, pending a trial or further review”: Carty-Pusey v. Pusey, 2015 ONCJ 382, at para. 79.

[28] Non-compensatory support considers the Respondent’s needs and the Applicant’s means, in an attempt to recognize any pattern of economic dependence that developed during the marriage: Achari v. Samy, 2000 BCSC 1211, 9 R.F.L. (5th) 247; Aujla v. Aujla, 2004 BCSC 1566 (both referred to with approval in T.M. v. M.A.G., 2006 BCPC 604).

[29] Since interim support is to provide income for a dependent spouse the court need not conduct a complete inquiry into all aspects and details to determine economic disadvantage. Interim support is a holding order to maintain the accustomed lifestyle pending final disposition and is to be based on the parties’ means and needs. The merits of the case await a final hearing: Sandhu, at para 35.

a) The Applicant’s Means

[30] There is some common ground about what the Applicant’s means are. The range of his annual income for support purposes is from approximately $45,000.00 (based on his evidence about his hourly wage in 2021) to $47,850.00 (based on his 2019 Notice of Assessment). The Respondent has identified other sources of funds that the Applicant has, such as the net sale proceeds from his condominium and a pension. The Applicant says these are not income sources to be considered in the context of his ability to pay spousal support, but are assets to be equalized as part of the net family property.

[31] There may be some authority in the context of a means and needs (non-compensatory) support analysis to look to available means other than income from employment, but the evidence about these other sources of funding that the Applicant may be able to access to pay support has not been sufficiently developed on this interim motion for me to impute specific additional resources or means to the Applicant. The Applicant has conceded that he can, and is prepared, to rearrange his affairs to pay more than what he says he can afford based on his financial statement, so to that extent, some additional sources of funds are embedded in the support amount that he is offering to pay.

[32] According to the Applicant’s financial statement, his gross monthly income is $3,781.29 and net monthly income is $1,245.50. Accounting for his monthly expenses, he says that he can only afford to pay the Respondent $552.35 per month. However, the Applicant says he can borrow or rearrange his affairs to enable him to pay the Respondent $733.00 per month, which is equivalent to the social assistance she is currently receiving.

[33] The Respondent argues that the Applicant is not making much of a concession by offering to pay more than he says he can afford, given that he will get a tax deduction for the spousal support payments and he does not have any real rent obligation since he lives with his family. The Respondent asks the court to consider the Applicant’s means based on his gross income (even if at the lower level that he says he will earn in 2021 of $45,000.00 per annum), which translates into available funds of $4,000.00 per month, with only a small deduction for expenses given that he lives with his family.

[34] This is how the Respondent supports her contention that the Applicant has the means to pay her the amount that she is asking for, of almost $2,000.00 per month. Based strictly on his salary and earnings, I have some difficulty in concluding that that Applicant has the means to pay the entire amount that the Respondent is seeking. I will come back to this after considering the Respondent’s needs.

b) The Respondent’s Needs

[35] It is apparent that the Respondent was economically dependent upon the Applicant after coming to Canada and prior to their separation.

[36] The Respondent has provided a detailed financial statement and budget to support the monthly amount that she says she needs to live in a reasonable accommodation (rather than a single room) and to buy basic food, clothing and pay for the costs of her retraining and competency assessments. This adds up to $1,798.53 per month, and she is asking for $1,915.00 to also account for the taxes that she will pay on spousal support received and some additional retraining/assessment costs.

[37] The Applicant does not accept as legitimate all of the amounts claimed, but more fundamentally contends that income should be imputed to the Respondent because she is underemployed. The Respondent has demonstrated that she is able to secure at least part-time work at a pharmacy (she has managed to secure at least three such part-time positions to date). The Applicant also argues that the Respondent has not demonstrated that she has made reasonable efforts to get any other jobs (even at minimum wage).

[38] The Applicant maintains that the Respondent’s needs must be considered on the basis that she has the ability to earn some income. He suggests that should be based on her earning full-time minimum wage of $29,120.00 per annum, and that income should be imputed to her at this level for purposes of the court’s consideration of what amount of spousal support she “needs”.

[39] The Applicant also asks the court to draw an adverse inference, and to conclude that the Respondent in fact has been earning more income than she has reported, or has other unreported sources of support, or has the ability to earn more, because:

a. Her financial disclosure has not been forthcoming to date and certain discrepancies have been noted in recent disclosures made in connection with this motion, compared to prior disclosures; and

b. Based on her own financial statement and budget, she has a monthly expense shortfall now that is not covered so she must have other sources of income or funding to be able to meet that shortfall.

[40] The Applicant argues that, if the Respondent wants to receive more support than the Applicant is offering, she should first make proper and full disclosure. Failing that, and based on income being imputed to her at full-time minimum wage, the Applicant contends that the Respondent’s needs will be met by the amount of support that the Applicant is prepared to pay: Majumder v. Rahman, 2018 ONSC 6587, at paras. 7-9.

[41] The Respondent disagrees with the suggestion that she has not provided full disclosure. She says all social assistance cheques have been particularized and T4s have been disclosed, so all information is available now. She has particularized her efforts to find work and maintains that only part-time pharmacy work is available right now. She objects to imputation of full-time minimum wage. She also says that she needs to devote time to her studies and exams.

[42] It is difficult on an interim motion, based on a paper record where there have been no cross-examinations, for me to make an assessment of the Respondent’s credibility or a finding that her disclosure has not been in accordance with her obligations under the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99. I am not prepared to do so at this time.

[43] However, at least insofar as one of the reasons that was proffered by the Respondent for why she had not earned more income since the parties separated is that her social assistance would have been clawed back, that problem would be solved if the Applicant pays her spousal support. It is reasonable to assume that the Respondent will have to go off of social assistance if she starts to receive spousal support of $733.00 (or more) from the Applicant. That should enable her to work at least part-time at minimum wage while she continues her retraining and writes her competency exams, the next one of which is scheduled in August 2021. According to the Respondent, these exams must be written in succession and there are four of them.

[44] The Applicant is right that this is not a situation where the Respondent is freshly separated. Imputing some income to the Respondent after a period of 18 months when she is fluent in English, is in possession of a university degree and has held four (4) minimum wage part-time jobs in 2020 is not unreasonable: Thomas v. Thomas (2003), 2003 CanLII 64346 (ON SC), 50 R.F.L. (5th) 416, (Ont. S.C.), at para. 74.

[45] Accordingly, and only for the purposes of this motion for interim support, I would impute to the Respondent part-time minimum wage income of $14,500.00 for purposes of assessing how much additional support she needs from the Applicant to meet her monthly needs.

iii) Contractual Support

[46] Section 33(9)(m) of the Family Law Act directs the court to consider any other legal right to support other than out of public money. The Sponsorship Agreement is such an agreement and its clear objective is to avoid the sponsored spouse being on public welfare.

[47] Courts have found it to be contrary to public policy for a sponsor such as the Applicant to ignore his contractual obligations to support the Respondent and keep her off of social assistance: T.M., at para. 17; see also M. (O.), at para. 25, and F.Y., at para. 43.

[48] The Applicant’s position is that, by paying continuing interim support to the Respondent in an amount equivalent to the social assistance that she has been receiving, being $733.00, his contractual obligations will be met and this will also achieve the objective of the Respondent no longer requiring public welfare.

[49] The Applicant will face whatever consequences or ramifications the government may impose for the time that the Respondent was on social assistance prior to now. The Applicant also points out that the Respondent had a contractual obligation to support herself and to come to him for assistance, which he claims she has only done recently. The Respondent maintains that her conduct has been consistent with her obligations and was a function of the time it took her to get herself settled and to obtain the advice and assistance she needed to assert her rights. These are issues that do not need to be decided on this motion and, if relevant, will be left to be determined at a later time.

[50] I find that the amount that the Applicant has offered to pay in support, equivalent to and in lieu of the $733.00 in monthly social assistance that the Respondent has been receiving, is the minimum amount that he must pay based on his contractual obligations.

iv) Quantum of Support to be Paid

[51] Section 33(9) of the Family Law Act requires the court to consider all of the circumstances of the parties in determining the amount and duration of support, if any, for a spouse. The court may consider a number of prescribed factors in this assessment, including the assets, means and capacity of both spouses to provide and/or contribute to support, their accustomed standard of living when they cohabited, and measures available for the dependent spouse to become self-sufficient.

[52] Despite having been completely economically dependent upon the Applicant after coming to Canada and prior to their separation, the Respondent has been working to improve her circumstances and to re-train and write her competency exams so that she can work in the field of pharmacy, as she had been trained to do in India. There is time and a cost associated with these efforts.

[53] The Applicant contends that, based on his means, he can only pay support of $552.35, but he will honour his contractual obligation under the Sponsorship Agreement and readjust his living standard and make arrangements so he can pay the social assistance equivalent of $733.00.

[54] The Applicant suggests that, even if he earns the same as what he did in 2019 (approximately $49,000.00) and the Respondent is imputed annual income at minimum wage of $29,000.00, on the basis of a 50/50 sharing of their total net disposable income (“NDI”), according to the DivorceMate calculation he would be required to pay her approximately $770 per month, which is just a little bit more than the $733.00 per month that he has offered to pay.

[55] However, I have concluded that the Respondent should only be imputed part-time minimum wage of $14,500.00 for purposes of assessing how much additional support she needs from the Applicant to meet her monthly requirements. If the Respondent is imputed part-time minimum wage income of approximately $14,500.00 per annum, on the basis that she could work part-time and still study and retrain for her competency assessments, and if I only attribute to the Applicant his projected 2021 annual income of approximately $45,000.00, on a 50/50 NDI basis, the Applicant would have to pay the Respondent $1,180.00 per month if they are to both have approximately the same amount of disposable income to live on.

[56] An amount of support in this range would reflect each of the Applicant’s and the Respondent’s capacity to provide and/or contribute to support, their accustomed standard of living when they cohabited, and measures available for the dependent spouse to become self-sufficient. When a spouse is sponsored to come to Canada, and the sponsor undertakes to support the spouse for a period of time, he should provide adequate support to enable her to take courses or retrain so that she can become self-sufficient: Chow v. Liu, 1996 CanLII 1238 (BC SC), at para. 45. The requested amount of support includes some contribution towards the ongoing costs of the competency exams that the Respondent has to write in order to be able to work as a pharmacy assistant in Canada.

[57] If the Applicant pays support to the Respondent of $1,000.00 per month and the Respondent is able to earn part-time minimum wage of $14,500.00 per annum (or $1,208.33 per month) this will give her slightly more than she was asking for overall on a gross basis, but also builds in a buffer for the time it might take her to find employment and allows for some additional contribution towards the Respondent’s costs of books, reference materials, licensing fees and other incidentals associated with her retraining (beyond her competency exams) that have not all been factored into her budget and that she has not been able to afford to buy based on the lower amount of monthly social assistance that she has been receiving.

[58] I have considered all of the circumstances of the parties, including their means and needs, the economic dependency of the Respondent on the Applicant and the significant economic consequences that their separation had on her, having moved from India to Canada without any close family, job or friends here. I have also considered the Sponsorship Agreement and the ultimate goal of self-sufficiency for the Respondent.

[59] In all of these circumstances, I find that the appropriate amount of temporary continuing spousal support for the Applicant to pay to the Respondent is $1,000.00 per month.

v) Duration of Support

[60] Courts have used the duration of a Sponsorship Agreement as the appropriate measure for the duration of spousal support. This is referenced by authors Carol J. Rogerson and D.A. Rollie Thompson in Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: The Revised User’s Guide, Department of Justice Canada, April 2016, c. 7(b).

[61] The Applicant’s submission is that, for a marriage of a short duration such as this, the temporary support order should not extend beyond the expiry of the three-year contractual period, ending on June 13, 2022. On that basis, he is willing to pay support from April 1, 2021 to June 1, 2022 (a total of fourteen months, the same length as the marriage), and says he will comply with any obligations under the Sponsorship Agreement to repay the City of Toronto for social assistance that the Respondent received over the past sixteen months.

[62] According to the Applicant, under the SSAGs the duration of spousal support for a marriage of this length would be only 7-14 months. Here the Applicant is prepared to pay the social assistance going forward (and expects to be asked to repay amounts received by the Respondent from social assistance in the past) which would cover, in total, approximately thirty months.

[63] The Respondent is not convinced that the Applicant will have to repay the social assistance monies she received and, in any event, claims to have been entitled to more than that in spousal support, which will all have to be reconciled in the context of any final adjudication or resolution of this matter. She does not agree that the temporary support order should be limited, but rather asks that it remain in place until the trial or other final resolution, whether that occurs before or after the expiry of the Sponsorship Agreement, at which point everything can be reconciled.

[64] At this time, I am not aware of any reason why this case could not be finally adjudicated (or resolved) by June 2022. Either party can move it forward. It also appears reasonable, based on the Respondent’s evidence, that she could complete her studies and competency exams by then, or close to then. If this turns out to be inaccurate, the Respondent can bring a motion to extend her temporary support.

[65] Temporary support is ordered payable by the Applicant to the Respondent from April 1, 2021 to June 14, 2022 on the basis that the Respondent may bring a motion to be scheduled before May 31, 2022 to extend her temporary support if no trial has been scheduled to commence and this proceeding has not otherwise been resolved before then. The support is payable on the first day of each month, in advance. Any support arrears are to be paid forthwith. The last month’s payment will be prorated for the first fourteen days of June 2022.

Costs, Order and Implementation

[66] Neither party came to the hearing with a costs outline. They each suggested an amount of costs, the Applicant at the low end of $1,000.00 and the Respondent at the high end of $5,000.00. It was agreed at the hearing that if the court determines that costs should be paid by one party to the other, the court should fix costs in the range of $1,000.00 to $2,500.00.

[67] The Respondent was successful on this motion. Although she did not get all that she was asking for, she was awarded support in an amount that is higher than what the Applicant was willing to pay. The Applicant has also not paid any support until now and the Respondent has been forced to receive social assistance, contrary to the Applicant’s contractual covenant to support her and keep her off of social assistance. In the exercise of my discretion under r. 24 of the Family Law Rules, I find that the Respondent is entitled to some of her costs of this motion. I am fixing those costs at $2,500.00 and ordering them payable by the Applicant to the Respondent.

[68] The following orders are made on a temporary without prejudice basis:

a. The Applicant shall pay to the Respondent continuing spousal support in the amount of $1,000.00 per month, commencing April 1, 2021 and payable in advance on the first day of each month thereafter;

b. The continuing spousal support shall be paid until the earlier of the trial (or other final resolution of the support claims in this proceeding) or June 1, 2022, subject to extension for a longer duration upon further review and order of this court if the Respondent brings a motion for such prior to May 31, 2022 in the event that no trial has been scheduled to commence before then;

c. This without prejudice and temporary spousal support is subject to adjustment at trial and is specifically, but without limitation, without prejudice to the Respondent’s right to seek more spousal support than what has been ordered and retroactive spousal support, and the Applicant’s position that the spousal support should be less than what has been ordered; and

d. The Applicant shall pay costs of this motion to the Respondent fixed in the amount of $2,500.00 forthwith.

[69] This endorsement and the orders contained herein shall be effective without the necessity of formal entry and issuance.

Kimmel J.

Date: May 4, 2021