Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-25-00047132 Date: 2026-03-25 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Oleksandra Dzyubak, Applicant And: Anton Savitch, Respondent

Before: Justice Carolyn Leach

Counsel: Brian Ludmer, for the Applicant Chelsea Murphy, for the Respondent

Heard: January 8, 2026

Endorsement

[1] This is a motion for interim spousal support brought by the respondent husband. The issues I must determine on this motion are:

a. Is the respondent entitled to interim spousal support?

b. If yes, what quantum of spousal support is appropriate on an interim basis? In particular, should the quantum calculation be based on the applicant's income around the date of separation, or should it take into account her post-separation increase in income? Further, should income be imputed to the respondent?

[2] For the reasons set out below, I have concluded that the respondent has a prima facie entitlement to spousal support, that the applicant's income for interim spousal support purposes should be fixed at $85,490, that no income should be imputed to the respondent, and that the appropriate quantum of interim spousal support is $2,254 per month.

Background

[3] The parties started dating in the fall of 2016 while the applicant was completing medical school. They began living together on July 1, 2017, which coincided with the applicant beginning her residency in obstetrics and gynecology at the London Health Sciences Centre.

[4] The parties were married on September 6, 2020. Their son, M., was born in February 2022. In December 2022, they moved from London to Toronto so that the applicant could begin a medical fellowship through the University of Toronto, specializing in gynecologic oncology.

[5] The parties separated on October 24, 2024, but continued to reside separate and apart in the matrimonial home (a rental apartment in Toronto).

[6] In April 2025, the applicant accepted a permanent position in her specialty in Hamilton. This position was scheduled to commence in January 2026, after the completion of her fellowship in December 2025. As will be detailed below, the applicant's income increased significantly starting in January 2026. In 2025, her yearly income was approximately $112,676.43. Starting in January 2026, she now receives a base salary of $194,123.38. During her first year of practice, she will also be able to retain 100% of her OHIP billings, bringing her total remuneration to an estimated $320,000. Thereafter, she will receive a base salary plus 33% of her OHIP billings.

[7] The respondent has not worked consistently since 2020. Up until August 2020, he worked part-time as a business development manager for food processing equipment. In September 2019, with the applicant's support, he began a 2-year master's degree in communications and media studies at Western University. His tuition was funded through the master's program up until September 2021; during this period, he worked as a graduate teaching assistant. From May 2022 to December 2022, he worked as a part-time temporary scheduling clerk at the London Health Sciences Centre. The respondent is not currently employed and did not earn an income in 2024 or 2025.

[8] The respondent has not yet completed his master's degree. He took a parental leave after M.'s birth, which he extended when the parties moved to Toronto. Following the separation, he took a compassionate leave of absence. He expects to complete his degree some time in 2026.

Interim Settlement Terms

[9] In December 2025, the parties reached an agreement on the issues of interim without prejudice parenting time, decision-making responsibility, and relocation. Pursuant to this agreement, by January 31, 2026, the applicant will have relocated to Hamilton, and the respondent will have relocated to London, where he will reside temporarily with his mother. The parties will share joint decision-making responsibility and parenting time will be shared equally based on a 2-2-3 schedule over a repeating two-week cycle.

[10] The parties also reached agreement on interim without prejudice child support. Pursuant to their agreement, the applicant will pay a set off quantum of child support to the applicant commencing January 1, 2026. The quantum will shift as her actual 2026 income becomes clear, and it will also account for a gradually increasing imputed income for the respondent, as follows:

a. Initially, the quantum of child support will be based on the applicant's base income from her new employer (approximately $194,100) and the respondent's actual current income ($0). The initial quantum will be $1,617 per month.

b. This quantum will be adjusted retroactively and prospectively in April 2026, based on each party's actual income to date.

c. In May 2026, the quantum will be adjusted to $2,096 per month, based on the applicant's anticipated annual income of $305,300 (which include both her base salary and OHIP billings) and an imputed income to the respondent of $36,608.

d. In September, the quantum will be adjusted again to $1,763 per month, based on the applicant's anticipated income of $305,300 and an income imputed to the respondent of $70,000.

e. Thereafter, child support will be adjusted annually following an exchange of the parties' notices of assessment/re-assessment and income tax returns.

[11] The parties have also agreed that there will be no debits or credits with respect to either child or spousal support to/from either party from the date of separation through December 31, 2025.

[12] The parties were unable to reach an agreement about interim spousal support going forward.

[13] M. will be starting junior kindergarten in September 2026. The applicant wishes to enrol him in school in Hamilton. The respondent states that he is open to relocating to Hamilton so that the current shared parenting schedule will continue to be manageable. However, his position is that he will require spousal support to afford to move. In particular, he will need funds for a first and last month's rent deposit, the costs of relocation, furniture/home supplies, and a car to facilitate parenting time exchanges.

[14] If he cannot relocate, the respondent will be seeking to enrol M. in school in London. In that event, it is likely the parties will require court intervention to determine the parenting schedule.

Temporary Spousal Support: Statutory Framework and General Principles

[15] Subsections 15.2(1) and (2) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985 c. 3 (2nd Supp.), give the court jurisdiction to make an interim or final order for spousal support. Section 15.2(4) of the Divorce Act directs the court hearing a spousal support claim to take into consideration "the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse," including:

a. The length of time the spouses co-habited;

b. The functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation; and

c. Any order, agreement or arrangements relating to support of either spouse.

[16] Section 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act sets out the objectives of a spousal support order, as follows:

Objectives of Spousal Support Order

15.2(6) An order made under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2) that provides for the support of a spouse should:

(a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown;

(b) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage;

(c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and

(d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.

[17] Justice Kraft, in Liddell-MacInnis v. MacInnis 2021 ONSC 1787, at para. 65, summarized the principles that apply to motions for temporary spousal support:

a. The party claiming temporary spousal support has the onus of establishing that there is a triable (prima facie) case, both with respect to entitlement and quantum. The merits of the case in its entirety are to be dealt with at trial.

b. In the event that a spousal support claimant cannot establish an arguable case for entitlement to spousal support, the motion for temporary relief should be dismissed, even if the claimant has need and the other party has the ability to pay.

c. The court is not required to carry out a complete and detailed inquiry into all aspects and details of the case, or to determine the extent to which either party suffered economic advantage or disadvantage as a result of the relationship or its breakdown. That task is for the trial judge.

d. The primary goal of interim spousal support is to provide income for the dependent spouse from the time the proceedings are commenced until the trial. Interim support is meant to be in the nature of a "holding order" to, insomuch as possible, maintain the accustomed lifestyle pending trial.

e. Assuming that a triable case exists, interim support is to be based primarily on the motion judge's assessment of the parties' means and needs. The objective of encouraging self sufficiency is of less importance.

Issue One: Is the respondent entitled to interim spousal support?

[18] Under the seminal cases of Moge v. Moge, 1992 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813 and Bracklow v. Bracklow 1999 CanLII 715 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 420, there are three conceptual models under which entitlement to spousal support may arise. These models are summarized by Professor Carol Rogerson and Professor Rollie Thompson in the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: Revised User's Guide (Ottawa: Department of Justice, April 2016), at pp. 5-11. They are:

a. Compensatory claims: Claims based either on the recipient's economic loss or disadvantage as a result of the roles adopted during the marriage or on the recipient's conferral of an economic benefit on the payor without adequate compensation.

b. Non compensatory claims: Claims based on need. "Need" can mean an inability to meet basic needs, but it has also generally been interpreted to cover a significant decline in standard of living from the marital standard. Non-compensatory support reflects the economic interdependency that develops as a result of a shared life, including significant elements of reliance and expectation, summed up in the phrase "merger over time".

c. Contractual claims: Claims which arise from formal domestic contracts but also implied or informal arrangements

Analysis

[19] The respondent submits that he is entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds. His evidence is that he was a stay-at-home parent to M. and responsible for household tasks such as grocery shopping, cooking and cleaning. He states that he was required to leave his position at the London Health Sciences Center and to take an extended parental leave from his graduate program in order to relocate with the applicant to Toronto. He states that his role as primary caregiver to M and the applicant's unpredictable working hours delayed the completion of his graduate program and impacted his ability to secure part-time employment. Further, he deposes that he directly supported the applicant's career aspirations by helping her with writing assignments and applications. Finally, he states that he was financially dependent on the applicant throughout their relationship. Since the separation, he has applied for numerous jobs with no success. He believes that his employment search has been complicated by the lack of certainty regarding where he and the applicant will live.

[20] The applicant's position is that the respondent has neither a compensatory or non-compensatory entitlement to spousal support. She disputes the respondent's claim that he sacrificed employment or career opportunities to support her. Rather, her account is that the respondent had no career direction and worked limited hours by choice when they began to cohabit. After losing his job in 2020, he failed to secure other employment or to make meaningful progress on his graduate thesis despite the applicant's entreaties and efforts to find employment opportunities for him. Her evidence is that the parties were aware that the respondent's clerical job at the London Health Sciences Centre would be short term in nature, as they already knew that they would be moving to Toronto when he accepted the position. She vehemently disputes the respondent's contention that they agreed he would be a stay-at-home parent; rather, she states that their plan was for him to complete his degree and secure employment. Her evidence details her efforts to support these endeavors, including hiring a part-time nanny in 2023 so that he could work on his thesis. Finally, she disputes the respondent's claims that he directly assisted her with career development activities, other than providing her minor proofreading assistance in 2016.

[21] I find that the respondent has a prima facie entitlement to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds.

[22] Given the conflicting affidavit evidence, I am unable to determine the extent of the respondent's caregiving responsibilities for the child and whether the parties agreed he would be a stay-at-home parent so the applicant could advance her career. However, it is clear that the respondent was the parent who was primarily home with M. I acknowledge that there were periods of time when the applicant was also home (for example, during her maternity leave), when the husband was working part-time (7 months in 2022), and when the parties had a part-time nanny (September 2023 to July 2024). Given the demanding nature of applicant's job and her unpredictable hours, I am satisfied that the couple relied on the respondent's general availability to meet their childcare needs. I also accept that the move to Toronto and the applicant's work schedule made it difficult for the respondent to find stable employment. These factors are sufficient to ground a triable compensatory claim.

[23] In my view, the respondent also has a triable non-compensatory claim notwithstanding the fact that this was not a long marriage. The applicant does not dispute that the respondent was financially dependent on her throughout their cohabitation. She does dispute the respondent's need for spousal support, given his plan to live rent-free with his mother. However, without spousal support, the respondent will experience hardship and a drop in his standard of living. From January to May, his only income will be the $1,617 he receives in child support. The situation should improve in May, assuming that he is actually able to earn the income of $36,608 that will be imputed to him. However, I am not confident in this regard, given his work history. I also find that there are elements of reliance and expectation to the respondent's dependence on the applicant. Both parties would have expected that the applicant would earn a substantially higher income once she completed her education. Taken together, the respondent has suffered an economic disadvantage as a result of the marriage breakdown.

Issue Two: What quantum of spousal support is appropriate on an interim basis?

[24] I now turn to the more challenging issue of the appropriate quantum.

Entitlement to share in post-separation increases in income

[25] The respondent's position is that any spousal support award should be based on the applicant's substantially increased income post-separation, as this increase can be directly linked to his contributions during the marriage and the sacrifices he made to support her career.

[26] The applicant's position is that her newly elevated income has no connection to the role the respondent played during the marriage. In fact, rather than a contributor to their shared economic life, she considers the respondent to have been a burden. Her evidence is that he resisted seeking employment throughout the relationship, failed to complete his master's degree (despite her paying for his tuition after 2021 and securing a part-time nanny so he could work on his thesis), and spent their limited funds on takeout, cannabis, alcohol and cigarettes. Further, her position is that the respondent is only entitled to the modest standard of living that they enjoyed when she was a medical student.

[27] Determining whether a spouse is entitled to share in the other spouse's post-separation increase in income is a fact-based exercise dependent on the circumstances of each individual case, the particular financial history of the parties during the marriage, and their likely circumstances in the future: see Fisher v. Fisher, 2008 ONCA 11, 88 O.R. (3d) 241, at para. 96, and Hartshorne v. Hartshorne, 2009 BCSC 698, 70 R.F.L. (6th) 106, at paras. 110, 119. It is a matter entirely within the discretion of a trial judge.

[28] When there is a finding of a compensatory basis for a spousal support claim, the recipient may be entitled to share in the post-separation increases in the payor's income: Howard v. Howard, 2021 ONSC 7784, at paras. 103-106, and Thompson v. Thompson, 2013 ONSC 5500, at para. 103.

[29] Temporary spousal support orders based on a post-separation increase in income have been ordered where there is a strong compensatory entitlement to support. This was the case in Hopkinson v. Hopkinson, 2023 ONSC 1583, in which there was no dispute that the recipient gave up her career to care for the children and the home, which allowed the payor to work long hours and advance his own career. After the parties separated following a twenty-year marriage, the payor was promoted and his compensation increased significantly. Justice Shore found the following, at para. 31:

It is not hard to see the link between the Respondent's current position and contributions by the Applicant. The Respondent was recruited based on the employment history he developed throughout the marriage. This history is linked to the role played by the Applicant in that marriage. I find that on an interim basis the Applicant is entitled to share in the post-separation increase in the Respondent's income.

[30] In James v. James, 2010 ONSC 3445, the payor's income doubled two years after the parties separated following their 5-year marriage. The payor's position was that his income at the time of separation should determine quantum, not the higher income he earned after separation. The motions judge found that he was unable to appropriately assess the recipient's entitlement to the payor's dramatic increase in income, noting that it would be a complex fact-based decision that is best addressed at trial: at paras. 34-36.

[31] Similarly, in Meeger v. Beaubier, 2013 SKQB 85, the court held that post-separation increases in income of either party should not be considered on an interim motion where there is no evidence that the increase in income is connected to the marriage. Again, the court noted that "it is usually when support is ordered on a compensatory basis that post-separation increases in income are included in a spousal support calculation": at para. 19.

[32] While I am satisfied that the respondent has a prima facie entitlement to spousal support on compensatory grounds, I cannot appropriately assess the strength of this entitlement given the conflicting written record. There are many key facts in dispute. For instance:

a. The respondent claims that he sacrificed career opportunities to care for M. and to support the applicant's career; the applicant states that when they met, he was "drifting", with no real career plan, and that throughout the relationship he consistently refused to look for work.

b. The respondent claims that his parenting responsibilities and the applicant's unpredictable work schedule prevented him from completing his master's degree; the applicant claims that he should have completed the degree in 2021, before their child was born, and that he failed to make any progress on his thesis even when she hired a part-time nanny.

c. The respondent states that he was primarily responsible for childcare and household tasks; the applicant disputes this and points to the limited periods of time when the respondent was home alone with the child (either because she was on maternity leave or was working only half days, or because of the part-time nanny).

d. The respondent claims that the parties had agreed he would be a stay-at-home parent to their son; the applicant claims that it was always understood that the respondent would complete his degree and find remunerative work.

e. The respondent claims that he directly contributed to the applicant's career advancement by helping her with writing assignments and applications; the applicant describes his contribution as minor proofreading and maintains that her achievements are solely the result of her hard work, strong academic and clinical performance, professional reputation, and networking.

[33] If and when this matter is tried and the parties' evidence is tested through cross-examination, a trial judge might indeed conclude that the respondent has a strong compensatory claim. However, at this interim stage, I cannot conclude that there is a clear link between the applicant's increased income and the sacrifices and contributions made by the respondent during their brief marriage. Accordingly, I will not base the quantum of temporary spousal support on the income that the applicant will be earning in her new position.

Applicant's income for temporary spousal support purposes

[34] As noted above, interim support is meant to be like a "holding order" which, inasmuch as possible, maintains the lifestyle the recipient is accustomed to pending trial. Interim support is primarily based on the motions judge's assessment of the parties' means and needs. The objective of encouraging self sufficiency is of less importance at this stage.

[35] With these principles in mind, I turn now to an assessment of the means and needs of the parties. The applicant has the means to pay spousal support. The respondent currently has no income other than the child support he is receiving from the respondent. He requires spousal support to achieve the modest student lifestyle the parties enjoyed during their marriage. It is not reasonable to expect him to continue living rent-free with his mother long-term. Furthermore, he will require temporary spousal support if he is to relocate to Hamilton and thereby facilitate the shared parenting plan that the parties have already agreed is best for their young son.

[36] The applicant's income for spousal support purposes poses something of a quandary. In 2024, the year of separation, she earned $62,729. However, in 2025, she earned almost double this amount: $112,676. Her materials do not explain this jump in income, although the respondent's counsel referred in submissions to the applicant completing a "partial year of fellowship" in 2024, and then a "full year of fellowship" in 2025. I also note that she earned less in 2024 than in the three previous years, when she earned $72,297 (2023); $83,686 (2022), and $96,062 (2021). These fluctuations are not explained in the materials, although I presume they have something to do with the comparative salaries of medical residents and fellows, and the period in 2022 when the applicant was on maternity leave. I find that the best way to roughly estimate the salary that supported the parties' lifestyle during their marriage is to average the applicant's salaries over this five-year period. This yields an income of $85,490 for spousal support purposes.

Imputing income to the respondent

[37] The applicant asks that I impute an income of either $36,608 or $70,000 to the respondent. While I agree that the respondent must make all efforts to find a stable income source as soon as possible, I decline to impute income to him at this interim stage. As noted by Kraft J. in Liddell-MacInnis, at para. 75:

The court may impute income to a party in the context of a motion for temporary spousal or child support but should exercise caution in doing so having regard for limitations on the court's ability in the context of a motion to obtain a complete and accurate picture of the parties' respective situations. This is particularly so in cases where the parties are still in the process of formulating plans and goals for re-organizing their affairs and lives in independent households. However, the decision as to whether or not income should be imputed ultimately remains in the discretion of the motions judge and depends on the particular facts of each case. Income may be imputed to a recipient spouse in cases involving a clear refusal to work or clearly insufficient efforts on their part to contribute to their expenses during the interim period.

[38] In this case, the parties are still in the process of untangling their lives and setting up independent households. There are many unknowns, including what employment the respondent will be able to secure and where he will live. I appreciate the applicant's position that the respondent has historically been unwilling to search for meaningful employment or to contribute financially to the family's expenses. However, I am satisfied that he has taken some steps to look for work. I also accept that it would be difficult for him to find stable, remunerative employment when it is not yet clear where he will be living. I am not satisfied that this is a situation where he is clearly refusing to work or making insufficient efforts to contribute to his own expenses. Further, the respondent's evidence is that his annual income has never exceeded $20,000; as such, it does not seem realistic to expect that he will be able to earn the income levels that the applicant seeks to impute to him within the next few months.

Fixing quantum within the SSAG ranges

[39] I have considered the ranges produced through the use of the SSAGs. Using the figure of $85,490 for the applicant's income and no income for the respondent, and applying the "With Child Formula", the resulting monthly spousal support ranges from $1,816 (low), $2,036 (mid) and $2,254 (high). A support mate calculation is attached to these Reasons at Tab "A".

[40] I find that support should be fixed at the high end of the range, even though this was not a long marriage and the evidence does not suggest that the respondent gave up a lucrative career in the paid labour market in order to look after M. In my view, the recipient has a limited earning capacity due to the gaps in his employment history over the past six years. Although his living expenses will be reduced while he is living with his mother, he will require funds to move to Hamilton and thus give effect to the shared parenting schedule that both parents feel is in M.'s best interests. M.'s standard of living is also a consideration: even at the high end of the range, M.'s standard of living at his father's home will be noticeably lower than at his mother's home. Further, this is not a situation where the payor spouse has limited ability to pay or where there is a need to ensure that she has sufficient funds to spend on M. when he is in her care. Finally, based on my review of their financial statements, the parties accumulated few assets during their marriage and there is little property to be divided. The respondent cannot rely on a substantial equalization payment to fund his move to Hamilton.

Order

[41] Based on the foregoing, an order shall issue as follows:

a. Pursuant to s. 15.2 of the Divorce Act, commencing on February 1, 2026, and on the first day of every month until further court order, the applicant shall pay the respondent temporary spousal support in the sum of $2,254 per month.

b. A support deduction order shall issue

Costs

[42] The parties are strongly encouraged to reach an agreement on costs. If they are unable to do so, the respondent shall serve and file written submissions on or before April 15, 2026. The applicant shall serve and file responding submissions on or before April 29, 2026. Written submissions shall comply with the requirements set out in r. 24(19) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99.

Justice Carolyn Leach

Date: March 25, 2026