SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: FC-24-00000392-0000
DATE: 2025/12/18
BETWEEN:
TAMARA MURPHY Applicant – and – GARRETT BRENNAN Respondent
Michael Purves-Smith, Counsel for the Applicant
Tania Harper, Counsel for the Respondent
HEARD: December 17, 2025
the honourable justice j. breithaupt smith
reasons on motion
[ 1 ] The Respondent brings a motion seeking to adjust spousal support currently payable pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Temporary Order of Justice Piccoli dated March 12, 2025 made on consent.
[ 2 ] The Applicant does not oppose the review of the quantum of spousal support; it is in fact specifically contemplated at paragraph 4 of the Temporary Order, which reads:
- Either party may apply to the Court to change the amounts in paragraph 3 based on changes in either of their employments.
[ 3 ] The parties effectively agree that current income figures are the logical foundation to the determination of interim support. The Applicant is now employed on a full-time basis. There is no dispute that they share parenting time for their children and they have agreed that the “set-off” calculated child support will apply. For the purpose of this motion, there is no dispute regarding entitlement to spousal support.
[ 4 ] The Respondent asks to pay the “Mid” amount in the range produced by the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (“SSAG”) calculation. The Applicant seeks the “High” amount, which represents an equal (50/50) division of net disposable income in the mathematics of the calculation.
[ 5 ] Before engaging in the analysis in detail, there are two points raised which I will address in a summary fashion, to confirm that both have had little impact upon my reasoning. I note that each of these points are secondary to the main question, which is whether it is better to take an income-levelling or a budgetary-levelling approach in reaching an equal division as between the two households’ standards of living. The Applicant argues for a budgetary approach as an essential component of the needs/means analysis; the Respondent submits that the current state of the law supports the income approach as contemplated by the SSAG calculations.
[ 6 ] The first point to which I have assigned no weight is whether the Applicant intentionally misrepresented her income when the consent terms respecting spousal support were negotiated. The Respondent suggests that the consent terms were negotiated “under false pretenses” as the Applicant knew that she had a pending job offer which would yield an annual income of $68,000. The Applicant vehemently denies any intention to mislead anyone. For the purposes of this motion, this point is immaterial. The parties specifically contemplated the reviewability of their temporary agreement on spousal support. They both agree that an income of $68,000 is to be attributed to the Applicant in determining the appropriate amount of spousal support. Consequently, and although this question may well be explored in greater detail at trial when credibility is considered more deeply, it is not factored into my analysis today.
[ 7 ] The second point is the interconnected nature of spousal support and the eventual resolution of other monetary issues. The Respondent has made trust claims against the equity in the parties’ family residence which is owned by the Applicant. It is argued that he ought not to pay a high amount of spousal support now, with the potential that it be reduced retrospectively after a trial, in a situation where he may be owed a property-related payment. Effectively, it is argued that he would be overpaying support on an ongoing basis to a person who actually owes him money. While appreciating that financial issues in a family’s separation are interconnected, I agree with the Applicant’s submission that factoring untested claims into an analysis of interim support would be excessively speculative. The same can be said of any potential credits on account of a retroactive reassessment of spousal support. As Justice Holowka wrote at paragraph 42 of Kinross v. Bleau, 2024 ONSC 766 [internal citations omitted] :
Motions for interim support typically deal with prospective matters. The courts tend to favor leaving issues respecting retroactive support to the trial judge. He or she will be in a better position to determine the matter on a more fulsome record.
[ 8 ] I turn then to the real crux of this issue which is the manner by which the financial circumstances of the two households are to be compared.
[ 9 ] On her client’s behalf, Ms. Harper makes an interesting and persuasive argument. There is no doubt that “need” and “ability to pay” are the central issues on an interim motion for spousal support ( see Politis v. Politis , 2015 ONSC 5997 at paragraph 36 ). Ms. Harper submits that, having regard to that foundational principle, a division of household standards of living ought to properly take place on a budgetary analysis. Thus, she has reviewed each party’s budget as set out in his or her financial statement and has concluded that the “Mid” spousal support amount produces an equal sharing of actual resources. She has considered housing and vehicle expenses and changes in assets and debts since separation in September of 2023. She encourages the Court to conclude that the most equitable result is one that reflects the on-the-ground experience in each household, which supports a “Mid” amount of $364 monthly.
[ 10 ] This is not the approach taken by the calculations in the SSAG. This tool focuses on income and accounts primarily for statutory deductions. It includes child benefits such as the HST rebate and the Canada Child Benefit (formerly Child Tax Benefit). Inputting of special and extraordinary expenses for the children is possible, and certainly the calculation conducts the undue hardship analysis, but there is no space for day-to-day budgetary amounts to be incorporated. Using this basic income information, the tool can be used to generate a 50/50 division of “net disposable income.” Each party’s net disposable income is determined as Guidelines Income minus Child Support minus Taxes and Deductions. For the child support recipient, the guidelines table amount of child support is notionally deducted to acknowledge funds spent by that party on the children while they are in his or her care. This is an important adjustment – it affirms and acknowledges that child support received does not generally correspond to the actual cost of raising children, and that the support recipient undoubtedly spends some of his or her own money on day-to-day child-rearing.
[ 11 ] By virtue of our general reliance upon the SSAG, the income approach is the current standard for determining the levelling point of net disposable income, particularly when assigning a temporary support amount on motion. Taking an income-levelling approach is one of ten principles regarding quantum of support as distilled by Justice Pazaratz in Enyedy-Goldner v. Goldner , 2024 ONSC 1755 at paragraph 18 . The principles can be summarized as follows:
Interim support is a short-term remedy intended to provide sufficient funds to maintain the same standard of living enjoyed prior to separation until the full merits of the case can be determined at trial.
The quantum should be as calculated in the SSAGs absent exceptional circumstances.
A mere disparity of income does not automatically lead to entitlement.
Income can be imputed to either party at the interim stage.
A lavish standard of living during the relationship may well result in a significant interim support order where the payor has the means.
Interim spousal support should be based primarily on the concept of income sharing, rather than unduly focusing on budgets which are often tentative and evolving.
Payments toward joint debts are to be considered as they reduce a payor’s means and a recipient's needs.
An interim order is only in effect until the final order is granted and is not binding on the trial judge.
Determining quantum is “rough justice at best.”
Where an interim award turns out to be inappropriate, an adjustment can usually be made at trial. This would include a retrospective adjustment.
[ 12 ] A fulsome budgetary approach is usually reserved for trial, when evidence can be tested and detailed and specific figures analysed. However, a budgetary analysis may be something that should be seriously considered, and potentially applied, in determining interim spousal support in this difficult economy where basic housing and grocery expenses consume an ever-increasing proportion of after-tax income.
[ 13 ] I am mindful of Mr. Purves-Smith’s concern that the evidence on a motion is untested – I am not convinced that cross-examination on Affidavit evidence is a necessary prerequisite to a budgetary analysis on motion, but certainly supporting documentation for budget entries (housing costs, automotive expenditures, etc.) should be supplied to confirm figures. I am also aware that a budgetary approach could have the unwanted effect of punishing a frugal spouse. These are important considerations for another day.
[ 14 ] For two fact-specific reasons, I decline to apply a budgetary analysis in this case: (1) the Respondent now cohabits with an individual who may earn as much or more than he does, and details regarding that person’s income have not been provided (although the Respondent properly volunteered that his housing cost has dropped as a result); and (2) the budgetary analysis demonstrated that, since the parties’ separation in September of 2023, the Respondent’s net savings have increased by approximately $21,000 whilst the Applicant’s net savings have grown by only $7,000. Thus, about $500 monthly (being $14,000 over the 28 months since separation) could conceivably be added to the Respondent’s budget. Notably, that amount is very close to the difference between the SSAG “Mid” of $364 and the “High” of $921 (which is $557).
[ 15 ] Based on the foregoing, spousal support will be payable by the Respondent to the Applicant in the amount of $921 monthly commencing July 1, 2025.
[ 16 ] As the parties agreed on almost all components of this motion other than the legal question of the proper analysis (budget vs. income), which is an important matter that warrants serious consideration, and as both counsel were well-prepared and helpful to the Court, each party shall bear his or her own costs.
J. Breithaupt Smith J.
Released: December 18, 2025
COURT FILE NO.: FC-24-00000392-0000
DATE: 2025/12/18
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: TAMARA MURPHY Applicant – and – GARRETT BRENNAN Respondent REASONS ON MOTION J. Breithaupt Smith J.
Released: December 18, 2025