CITATION: Boyko v. Boyko, 2026 ONSC 2234
COURT FILE NO.: FS-25-00053425-0000
DATE: 20260416
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: MARNIE BOYKO, Applicant
AND:
ROBERT BOYKO, Respondent
BEFORE: K. SAH J.
COUNSEL: Richard Niman, Counsel, for the Applicant
Elliott Birnboim and Hailey E. Corrigan, Counsel, for the Respondent
HEARD: March 31, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
Overview
[1] This motion requires a determination of whether the applicant has met the prima facie threshold for entitlement to compensatory and/or or non-compensatory spousal support. If entitlement is found, the court is also required to determine the income of each party for support purposes and two other specific corollary issues.
[2] At the time this motion was argued, the respondent, Robert Boyko, did not file his Answer and Claim by Respondent. An undertaking was provided for this to be filed in short order. The Claim by the respondent listed three additional respondents, two of Mr Boyko’s corporations and Marnie Grundman.
Brief Background
[3] The parties’ relationship was short. They began dating in March 2019. The applicant claims they began cohabiting in July 2020; however, the respondent alleges they started to cohabit in March 2021.
[4] At this interim stage, the eight-month difference in the period of cohabitation may influence quantum and if entitlement be found, the discrepancy will be addressed below.
[5] They married in November 2023 and separated in September 2025.
[6] Prior to the commencement of the parties’ relationship, the applicant worked in the marketing, networking, and personal development space. She claims to have also earned nominal commission working for Isagenix. Since March 2024, the applicant also contributes to a project run through Bob Proctor Legacy Inc., claiming she did so to maintain her own professional identity and independence as the respondent allegedly demanded that she increased her workload for him, as further described below.
[7] The respondent was a semi-professional and then professional hockey player in Europe. He is currently 50 years old and due to several significant career ending injuries, has chronic pain which causes him to take OxyContin and Morphine long-term. He claims to have minimal ability to concentrate and focus. He also highlights that he attended 12 different high schools and barely graduated.
[8] It is the respondent’s evidence that he has no capability to manage his personal finances. During his first marriage that lasted 15 years, his wife and her brother assisted him. Then, the respondent's sister took over the role, but within a short time he met the applicant who he claims insisted to take on these tasks.
[9] It is the respondent’s evidence that the applicant did all of his banking, managed money and transfers, paid all bills including credit cards, dealt with his accountant, all of his bookkeeping, and she liaised with professionals and directed him to make certain investments. He maintains she had absolute control over his finances and admits that he gave her that control.
[10] At the same time, the respondent claims that it was the applicant who persuaded him to turn over complete control of his finances, including allowing her full access to his bank account.
[11] Despite his self‑described limitations, the respondent has successfully established an environmental demolition company, The Bearstar Group Inc. (“Bearstar”), in which his holding company, Sonnystar Inc. (“Sonnystar”), holds a 45 percent ownership interest.
[12] Sonnystar is structured with both common and preferred shares. The Rob Boyko Family Trust (2039) (“Family Trust”) wholly owns the common shares, while the respondent personally holds all preferred shares. According to the respondent, Sonnystar was established to receive available profits from Bearstar through management fees, which are then distributed in proportion to the respective shareholdings.
[13] The respondent also has an interest in Diablo Properties Investments Ltd. ("Diablo") which is owned by the Family Trust for the purpose of holding certain real estate properties and developments in Costa Rica.
[14] Other relevant corporations include:
• 3–102-0812785, SLR ("785 SLR"), which is a corporation incorporated in Costa Rica that holds title in a property called Casa Moon Diablo. The shares of this company were allegedly fraudulently put in the applicant's and her friend's names despite claims that all funds for the purchase of the property came from the respondent. This corporation is subject to a trust claim advanced by the respondent.
• 3–102–846320, SLR which is a corporation that was incorporated in Costa Rica and holds title to a condominium project that is a preconstruction property. The respondent invested in this corporation in 2022.
[15] The respondent solely owns the matrimonial home in Toronto, and the parties purchased three condominiums in Miami during their relationship. One condominium is fully built, and the two others are preconstruction projects. The respondent is the sole owner of two of the condominiums and the applicant is on title on one of the preconstruction projects.
[16] There is also a home and piece of land and Costa Rica. They are owned by the two separate numbered corporations described above.
Issues
[17] This issues to be determined are as follows:
Has the applicant established a prima facie threshold for entitlement of compensatory and/or non-compensatory spousal support?
If the answer to issue #1 is yes, what are the incomes of the parties and what quantum of support is owing?
If the answer to issue #1 is yes, is it appropriate to order retroactive spousal support in the circumstances of this case?
Is it appropriate to make an interim, interim orders on this motion?
Analysis
Entitlement
[18] The court may make an interim order for spousal support, pursuant to s. 15.2(2) and 15.2(4) of the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), having regard to the conditions, needs, means, and other circumstances of the parties including the length of the relationship and the functions performed by each spouse during the marriage.
[19] An interim order should meet the objectives of support set out in s. 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act, including recognizing any economic advantages or disadvantages arising from the marriage, apportioning between the spouses the financial consequences arising from childcare, and relieving economic hardship flowing from the breakdown of the marriage.
[20] An interim support award is a temporary order only and inevitably imperfect: Cardoso v. Cardoso, 2013 ONSC 5092, at para. 36. It is meant to provide “a reasonably acceptable solution to a difficult problem until trial”: Chaitas v. Christopoulos, 2004 CanLII 66352 (ON SC), [2004] 12 R.F.L. (6th) 43 (Ont. S.C), quoting McMillan v. McMillan, [2001] O.J. No. 2771, at para. 15.
[21] In Driscoll v. Driscoll, 2009 CanLII 66373 (Ont. S.C.), the Court, referring to Robles v. Kuhn, 2009 BCSC 1163 directs that it does not engage in an in-depth analysis of the parties’ circumstances in an interim support motion. It is “rough justice at best”. The court set out the following principles, at para. 14:
On applications for interim support the applicant's needs and the respondent's ability to pay assume greater significance;
An interim support order should be sufficient to allow the applicant to continue living at the same standard of living enjoyed prior to separation if the payor's ability to pay warrants it;
On interim support applications the court does not embark on an in-depth analysis of the parties' circumstances which is better left to trial. The court achieves rough justice at best;
The courts should not unduly emphasize any one of the statutory considerations above others;
On interim applications the need to achieve economic self-sufficiency is often of less significance;
Interim support should be ordered within the range suggested by the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines unless exceptional circumstances indicate otherwise;
Interim support should only be ordered where it can be said a prima facie case for entitlement has been made out;
Where there is a need to resolve contested issues of fact, especially those connected with a threshold issue, such as entitlement, it becomes less advisable to order interim support.
[22] The parties did not have a long-term marriage/period of cohabitation. They had no children together.
[23] It is the applicant’s evidence that, in 2023, the respondent persuaded her to set aside her own career to manage his personal finances and support his work in his business. As a result, she asserts that she has had only nominal personal income for the past several years.
[24] The applicant claims that she has suffered an economic loss as a result of the rules adopted during the parties’ relationship claiming that her ability to grow her own financial future was overshadowed by her responsibilities to the respondent.
[25] The applicant submits she was working as the respondent’s personal assistant which included managing documentation for the accounting, dealing with any legal matters that arose, and managing the overhead expenses required to run his personal corporation and property investments. She states she was responsible for booking the respondent’s travel, handling various disputes between him and the Toronto Condo Board and the Miami Condo Board, and to handle any loans he may have provided to others. There is also no dispute that the applicant liaised with accountants on behalf of the respondent.
[26] It is also evidence that the applicant worked primarily for the respondent. She claims to have organized special events for Bearstar including creating invitations, managing guest lists, and working with various venues for holiday parties, client weekends, and dinners.
[27] The applicant alleges that despite doing all of this work, the respondent refused to hire another person or make her an employee of Bearstar or Sonnystar.
[28] The respondent alleges the applicant insinuated herself into complete control of his finances, claiming to have been an easy target for such conduct given his limitations.
[29] Despite the obvious disagreement about how the applicant became involved with the respondent’s finances, the respondent has an established past practice of never dealing with his finances on his own. There was always someone else to look after his finances. There also appears to be no dispute that this pattern continued post-separation as the respondent moved all financial responsibilities from the applicant to his sister. The responsibilities his sister now manages include his taxes, the Toronto and Miami condominium mortgage payments, and Costa Rica bills. This demonstrates that the respondent was aware of the work the applicant partook in for him or for their benefit.
[30] On the record before me, the roles adopted by the parties within their relationship were such that the applicant supported and assisted the respondent both personally and in relation to his career and business. While the extent to which this support contributed to the respondent’s success or prosperity remains to be determined; however, there appears to be no dispute regarding the level of the applicant’s involvement, which was more than merely cursory or basic.
[31] While there is no clear evidence of any forgone career opportunities for the applicant, her involvement with the respondent’s finances was wide-ranging.
[32] The respondent’s sister’s evidence confirms the extensive nature of the applicant’s involvement with the respondent’s finances and, to some extent, corroborates the applicant’s account of her role in the relationship. The applicant had access to the respondent’s account information, including upcoming payment dates, financial obligations, and login credentials and passwords. This supports the conclusion that the applicant had access to intimate details of both the respondent’s and Sonnystar’s financial affairs, including matters relating to tax payments, the Costa Rica property, and other financial commitments.
[33] While the respondent may now express dissatisfaction with the way the applicant managed his and his corporations’ affairs, it does not change the fact that there was clear interdependence throughout the parties’ relationship. This speaks to the applicant’s entitlement to spousal support.
[34] There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant conferred an economic benefit on the respondent without receiving adequate compensation. While there is no apparent dispute that the applicant was not paid for her assistance to the respondent, there is little to no evidence of any economic benefit.
[35] However, as set out below, over time, the relationship created reliance and expectation.
[36] First, the court will address the allegations of fraud. The respondent attempted to impugn the applicant’s character by suggesting that she engaged in fraudulent activity, both before and after their separation.
[37] He claims that the applicant sourced and insisted that he purchased a preconstruction condominium in Miami to replace what he described to be his modest holiday condominium which he purchased in January 2021 for $355,000 USD. As a result, he claims to have put $800,000 in as a down payment towards a preconstruction on a $2.3 million investment. He claims the applicant insisted the condominium be placed in both their names, noting the applicant had no funds to invest in the project.
[38] Further, the respondent alleges that the applicant committed fraud as it relates to one of the properties in Costa Rica. He alleged the applicant also persuaded him to purchase a home in Costa Rica that she had found when she was visiting the country. The entire amount invested in the property, approximately $1.2 million, came solely from the respondent.
[39] He claims the applicant fraudulently incorporated a company, 785 SLR, and she had 11 shares of the corporation while her friend had one share in the corporation. He claims that 785 SLR then took ownership of the property in Costa Rica.
[40] Following their separation, the respondent alleges that the applicant approached his business partners and asked them for $150,000 stating that she was typing the request with the respondent sitting beside her and asking if they knew when they expected money to come in from older receivables. The respondent claims this did not occur.
[41] In addition, the respondent alleges that following their separation, the applicant flew to his condo in Miami and once there, took his Sonnystar business credit card, which he only used for expenditures in Miami and spent over $20,000 on extravagant expenses, including hotel stays, meals, and shopping without his permission. The respondent also claims that she used his credit cards to pay her retainer for her lawyer.
[42] The respondent further claims the applicant depleted his accounts and credit cards after separation, and, upon her return to Toronto, demanded $50,000 to assist her with setting up a new place. The respondent provided the applicant with $20,000 and offered to sign a lease to ensure she had somewhere to live, but she refused and demanded cash.
[43] The responded also alleges the applicant fraudulently depicted herself as someone in dire financial need misleading the court to obtain an urgent case conference date which allowed her to obtain her leave to proceed with this motion.
[44] The allegations of fraud have not been proven, and any finding of fraud and any potential remedy have yet to be determined.
[45] However, from the foregoing issues before this court at this time, the court notes the significant means of the respondent, and he admits that the applicant had no funds to acquire these properties, in essence, supporting her claims of need or lack of capital and cash.
[46] The respondent’s offer to co-sign a lease and him giving her $20,000 is akin to an acknowledgement of her need.
[47] According to the respondent, the applicant portrayed herself prior to the marriage as a highly successful professional — a best‑selling author, businesswoman, mentor, and public speaker.
[48] The respondent asserts that the applicant engaged in multiple professional “scams,” claiming that since the age of 19, she had been earning six‑figure sums.
[49] The respondent further maintains that the applicant cultivated an image of wealth and success, including claims of travelling by private jet and showcasing a luxurious lifestyle. He notes that her social media presence is filled with self‑promotional images depicting financial success.
[50] It is difficult to determine whether the applicant’s representations reflect her actual financial circumstances.
[51] The applicant’s sworn financial statement provides a different picture. At the date of marriage, she reported approximately $100,000 in household goods and furniture, minimal funds in her bank accounts, and the value of one of her businesses listed as “to be determined.” She also carried over $50,000 in debt at the date of marriage. While this debt decreased to approximately $37,000 by the date of separation, it subsequently increased again after separation.
[52] Taken together, the sworn evidence suggest that the applicant’s actual financial position was not reflective of the image she presented publicly, and the sworn evidence supports her position that she is in need of support.
[53] Further, the applicant claims that the respondent told her to use his Sonnystar credit card to pay off her own credit card bills when she needed to solidify her role in managing his life and to ensure that she could not focus on her own career.
[54] The applicant submits she struggles to meet her everyday needs, let alone maintain the lifestyle the parties established together, and she was, therefore, accustomed to during the parties’ relationship.
[55] The lifestyle she describes included fine dining at high-end and Michelin star restaurants around the world, luxury expenditures such as private jets, yachts, high end watches, and expensive cars, including the respondent’s two leased Lamborghinis. She noted the parties travelled frequently to Chicago, Miami, New York, Las Vegas, and Italy. They travelled in business class.
[56] When in Toronto, the applicant alleged that their lifestyle was similar and included booking box seats at Toronto Maple Leaf games and concerts as well as dining at high-end and Michelin star restaurants.
[57] She notes the respondent spent considerable money on their wellness, including hiring a private yoga teacher for six months, having a full gym in all three of their homes with a full sauna and ice baths in Toronto and Costa Rica, participating in a one-year extensive health program at the Cleveland Clinic, and generally spending tens of thousands of dollars per year on health and Wellness.
[58] She claims the respondent consistently reassured her that he would look after her financially and he paid for most of their living expenses.
[59] After the parties separated, the applicant moved to their condominium in Miami until she was forced to vacate the condominium and claims to have been left with nowhere to go. She claims that a month after their separation, the respondent cut off her access to credit cards and she could not cover her daily needs or pay for hotels or Airbnbs.
[60] The respondent delivered $20,000 in cash to the applicant suggesting that this was all the support she was entitled to receive.
[61] Following their separation, the applicant alleges she is living off of her credit cards and she has not been able to pay them off. This is confirmed in her financial statement. The applicant's current reoccurring monthly expenses include food, health needs, utilities, transportation costs, insurance, and her phone bill, all of which she is paying on credit card.
[62] The applicant claims she cannot maintain the lifestyle she was accustomed to during marriage despite attempts to minimize her spending. She has begun working with the Bob Proctor Legacy Inc., but she claims she is unable to make ends meet on her modest income from commission on sales.
[63] The applicant's lease on her apartment also expires in May, after which she will need to find new accommodation.
[64] The foregoing demonstrates the applicant’s inability to meet basic needs and economic hardship.
[65] Meanwhile, the respondent’s line 15000 income is $1,329,812.20. Additionally, Bearstar’s financial statements for 2023, 2024, and 2025 show retained earnings of $2,341,112, $3,463,590, and $3,906,382, respectively.
[66] The respondent’s sworn financial statement reveals income of $77,479.20 based on his T4 income while his expenses amount to almost $300,000 on a yearly basis.
[67] The respondent’s evidence and his past payment to the applicant demonstrates that he has the means to pay support; however, more is required to determine his actual income for support purposes.
[68] Although the ultimate strength of the applicant’s entitlement is still to be assessed, the current evidentiary record is sufficient to establish a prima facie case for support based on (1) the parties’ economic independence; (2) the applicant’s reliance on the respondent and a degree of expectation created as a result of their time together; (3) her immediate need; and (4) the respondent’s means to pay support.
Parties’ Income
[69] In Mason v. Mason, 2016 ONCA 725, 132 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 162, the following principles were summarized:
• s. 15 provides that a spouse's annual income is determined in accordance with ss. 16 to 20;
• s. 16 provides that, subject to ss. 17 to 20, a spouse's annual income is the spouse's line 150 income;
• under s. 17, if a court determines that s. 16 produces an amount that would not be the fairest determination of annual income, the court may have regard to the spouse's income over the last three years to determine a fair and reasonable amount in light of, among other things, any pattern of, or fluctuations in, income;
• under s. 18, if the spouse is a shareholder, director or officer of a corporation and the court determines that s. 16 produces an amount of annual income that does not fairly reflect all the money available to the spouse to pay support, the court may determine the spouse's annual income to include all or part of the pre-tax income of the corporation for the most recent taxation year; and
• s. 19 sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which a court may impute income to a spouse. [Footnotes omitted.]
[70] At para. 163, the Court of Appeal in Mason states:
. . . s. 18 permits a court to take an annual snapshot of a spouse's income — and include in it pre-tax corporate income from the most recent taxation year. If the corporation suffered a loss in the most recent taxation year, no amount of pre-tax corporate income may be included. Under s. 17 however, the court may determine an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to the spouse's income over the last three years in light of, among other things, any pattern of, or fluctuations in, income over the three-year period. And "income" for that purpose may include amounts of pre-tax corporate income added to line 150 income under s. 18 for each of those years. [Footnotes omitted.]
[71] The onus is on the party seeking to impute income to the other party to establish that the other party is intentionally unemployed or under-employed. The person requesting an imputation of income must establish an evidentiary basis upon which this finding can be made: Homsi v. Zaya, 2009 ONCA 322, 248 O.A.C. 168, at para. 28.
[72] Once a party seeking the imputation of income presents the evidentiary basis suggesting a prima facie case, the onus shifts to the individual seeking to defend the income position they are taking: Lo v. Lo, 2011 ONSC 7663, 15 R.F.L. (7th) 344, at para. 57; Charron v. Carriere, 2016 ONSC 4719, at para. 66.
[73] Where a party fails to provide full financial disclosure relating to their income, the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference and to impute income to them: Szitas v. Szitas, 2012 ONSC 1548, at para. 57; Woofenden v. Woofenden, 2018 ONSC 4583, at para. 38.
[74] The respondent submits his income should reflect a three-year average of the salary he received from Bearstar and the net income of Sonnystar, totaling 878,441.50. The applicant disputes the accuracy of this amount and estimates the respondent’s income at $1,329,811 is comprised of employment income, net self-employment income, and actual capital gains.
[75] The applicant asks that her income for support purposes be set to $25,200 suggesting that her self-employment income fluctuates. The respondent submits that the applicant’s income should be imputed to $100,000 claiming that she does not deny this history of earning.
[76] When an individual solely owns a corporation, they control how much they are paid, whether through salary or dividends. They need to show what they pay themselves is a reliable indicator of what they are actually earning: Crightney v. Garcia, 2024 ONCJ 431, at para. 93.
[77] The respondent’s Line 15000 Income cannot be accepted to be as income for support purposes. The evidence before the court, including the respondent’s evidence about his yearly expenses suggests that his means are far greater than his income as stated on his personal income tax return.
[78] Both parties agree that a three-year average is an appropriate method of determining the respondent’s income. Taking a three-year average as permitted under s. 17 of the Guidelines and this is a fair and reasonable way to determine income: Child Support Guidelines, O. Reg. 391/97. I see no reason to interfere with the parties’ position here. However, the parties disagree on the figures to be used to in calculating the average.
[79] The respondent suggests that his income should be comprised of his salary from Bearstar plus net income from Sonnystar, averaged over the years 2023 to 2025. The applicant submits this is an inaccurate measure as the net income for Sonnystar in 2024 reflects a negative value owing to redemption of shares and a reorganization.
[80] The applicant submits that if the court were to average the respondent’s income over the last three years it can include appropriate amounts of pre-tax corporate income under s. 18 of the Guidelines. The applicant relies on Mason, which explains that it “would make little sense to permit consideration of a spouse’s income over the three-year period without permitting consideration of the spouse’s access to pre-tax corporate income in each year of the three-year period. This is particularly the case where, as here, the payor spouse now wholly owns the corporation… Otherwise, the exercise of considering a pattern of, or fluctuations in, income would be artificial” Mason, at para. 164.
[81] The applicant asked the courts to calculate the respondent’s income using his personal corporations’ retained earnings from 2023 to 2025 which results in a three-year average of $1,158,354.
[82] Considering access to pre-tax corporate income is not the same as singularly focusing only on retained earnings through a personal corporation. In Mason, the Court of Appeal determined that part of the company’s pre‑tax earnings should be attributed to the payor’s income and then added those amounts to his reported line 15000 income. This is consistent with the approach proposed by the respondent and, this court exercises its discretion to determine the respondent’s income, at this interim stage, in the same manner.
[83] The court recognizes that applicant’s concerns regarding the Sonnystar’s net income in 2024 which is reported a loss. It is important to remember that interim support orders are subject to variation once these complicated issues can be determined on a full evidentiary record.
[84] Turning to the applicant’s income, imputation requires evidence. The court cannot assign an income without a factual foundation or rational basis in the record.
[85] The applicant’s Notice of Assessment reports income of $53,475 in 2022, and $0 in 2023 and 2024.
[86] Her financial statement indicates she obtains income from Isagenix and the Bob Proctor Legacy Inc. Her financial statement said she received $4,000 USD per month from Bob Proctor Legacy Inc. in the months of January and February 2026. She further disclosed that net self-employment income is $2,100 per month.
[87] Given her skill set out above, her past reported income, and her own evidence regarding self employment income and recent earnings from Bob Proctor Legacy Inc., I find the applicant has the ability to earn at least $35,000 per annum and her income shall be set as much on this interim motion.
[88] After imputing the respondent’s income of $878,442 and the applicant’s income of $35,000, using the applicant’s date of marriage/cohabitation of July 30, 2020, and the September 11, 2025, date of separation, the range of spousal support is: $5,272 on the low end, $6,150 on the mid range, and $7,029 on the high end.
[89] The same income figures, using the respondent’s date of marriage/cohabitation date of March 1, 2021, and the September 2, 2025, date of separation, yields spousal support as follows: $4,744 on the low end, $5,535 in the mid range, and $6,326 on the high end.
[90] At this interim stage, I see no basis to depart from the mid‑range. This is not being used as a default position rather, it reflects that the strength of the applicant’s entitlement is yet to be tested, and duration is unknown.
[91] To account for the difference in the spousal support payable based on the party's respective dates, the court will take an average of the two mid-range amounts, resulting in a monthly payment from the respondent to the applicant in the amount of $5,842.50.
Retroactive Support
[92] Upon the receipt of disclosure and an income report, the applicant seeks that the court order retroactive support for the period of December 1, 2025, to the date of the ongoing support order on a without prejudice basis as to quantum.
[93] However, the court is not inclined to order retroactive support simply due to the fact that entitlement found. The basis for entitlement shapes the amount and duration of a spousal support award.
[94] In the case of short marriages or short periods of cohabitation, the SSAGs often generates time limited transitional support to cushion a drop in a party’s standard of living: Carol Rogerson & Rollie Thompson, Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: The Revised User’s Guide (Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 2016).
[95] As this case is in the early stages of litigation, the amount of support ordered by this court will assist the applicant with her immediate needs and a retroactive review may be considered at trial with the benefit of its full evidentiary record.
Interim-Interim
[96] The applicant asks the court to make an "interim interim" order at this time.
[97] She submits that the parties are in a holding pattern and financial disclosure has not yet to be fully exchanged.
[98] The nature for request is to ensure that this order can be reviewed without demonstrating a material change of circumstance as would be the case if the order was made on a temporary or interim basis.
[99] This issue was reviewed by Henderson J. in Lacroix v. Meek, 2023 ONSC 3369. In Lacroix, the court reviewed the following commonly accepted principles:
• Temporary family law orders are not final.
• Temporary orders are imperfect solutions prepare prepared based on limited and often untested evidence.
• Temporary orders provide short term solutions until the court can make a full determination at trial.
• Courts are discouraged to vary temporary orders and the party requesting the change has the high threshold of demonstrating a material change in circumstance.
• Some courts have held that the words "without prejudice" orders should not require proof of a material change to be revisited based on several policy considerations: Ceho v. Ceho, 2015 ONSC 5285.
• Other courts have held that the words "without prejudice" should not lower the threshold for varying a temporary order if the order was intended to last until trial and "without prejudice" means that the trial judge could later make a different finding: Stolp v. Stolp, 2021 ONSC 3365.
[100] I take the view that the question here is whether this order is intended to take the parties to trial or to a point down the road when spousal support may be reviewed.
[101] In this case, it is the latter. In other words, this order is intended to take the parties down the road when spousal support may be reviewed.
[102] I based these comments on the following considerations:
• The parties’ period of cohabitation was short term.
• Trials are currently being booked a year down the road.
• Some disclosure has been exchanged, but it is ongoing, and it is expected that it will be completed before the settlement conference.
• Better evidence parties' true income maybe forthcoming.
[103] I do not make these comments with an invitation to continue with protracted litigation.
[104] This litigation remains in its early stages. The parties are reminded that proportionality must guide their approach, and the focus should not be on drawn out litigation but on problem-solving, whether through an alternative dispute resolution process or through creative good faith efforts to a resolution.
Orders
[105] Pursuant to the Divorce Act, this court orders, on a temporary basis:
Commencing April 1, 2026, and payable on the first day of each month thereafter pending further court order or agreement between the parties, the respondent shall pay to the applicant spousal support in the monthly amount of $5,842.50 based the applicant’s imputed income of $35,000 per annum and the respondent’s imputed income of $878,422 per annum.
Support Deduction Order and Support Deduction Order Information to issue.
If the parties are unable to settle costs, cost submissions shall be filed in accordance with the timelines set out in Rule 24(19) of the Family Law Rules. If submissions are not received in accordance with the timelines in the Rules, costs shall be deemed to be settled.
JUSTICE K. SAH
Date: April 16, 2026