Preuschaft v Marmoria Laferla, 2026 ONSC 474

CITATION: Preuschaft v Marmoria Laferla, 2026 ONSC 474

COURT FILE NO.: FS-24-00043680

DATE: 20260123

RE: Juliana Preuschaft, Applicant

AND:

Plinio Marcos Marmoria Laferla, Respondent

BEFORE: C. Leach, J.

COUNSEL: Danny M. Bertao, for the Applicant

Dana Lue, for the Respondent

HEARD: November 13, 2025

Nature of the Motion

1This is the Applicant’s motion for temporary child and spousal support. The Applicant seeks an order imputing income to the respondent of $390,028.78 a year. In the alternative, she asks the court to impute an annual income to the Respondent of either $360,028.78, $235,154.78, or $205,154.78.

2The Respondent seeks an order dismissing the Applicant’s motion because he is currently paying her $3,415 a month, which he claims is meeting her needs. The $3,415 a month, includes $1,000 a month in “uncharacterized support”, $115 for her internet, and a rent-free apartment which he values as a $2,500 benefit. Alternatively, he seeks an order that he continue to pay the Applicant $1,000 per month in “uncharacterized support”. If increased child/spousal support is ordered, the Respondent asks that it commence after the Applicant has moved out of the apartment. According to the Respondent, his annual income for child support purposes is $93,376.

Issues to be Determined

3The issues I need to determine on this motion are:

(a) What is the Respondent’s income for support purposes?

(b) Based on that income, what interim child support order should be made?

(d) Is the Applicant entitled to spousal support?

(e) If yes, what quantum of spousal support is appropriate on interim basis?

(f) If interim child and spousal support orders are made, when should they commence?

Background

4The parties are former common law partners. They have a daughter together who is now eight years old. The Applicant mother is originally from Brazil. The Respondent father is originally from Uruguay, but has resided in Toronto since about 1994. The parties met in Brazil in March 2015. At the time, the Respondent was travelling back and forth from Toronto and Brazil on a regular basis, and the Applicant was living in Brazil.

5The Applicant’s evidence is that the parties began to cohabit in November 2015, when the Respondent moved into her apartment and began to spend most of the year in Brazil. The Respondent states that they did not move in together until February 2017, when the Applicant gave up her apartment and they started renting an apartment together. Their child, M., was born on September 18, 2017. Throughout the relationship, the Respondent spent part of the year in Brazil and part of the year in Toronto.

6The Applicant has a Master of Business Administration and worked as an account manager for HSBC in Brazil. She states that she continued working until May 2018, when both she and the Respondent decided that she should become a stay-at-home mother to M. The Respondent’s evidence is that the Applicant refused to work after M. was born. Regardless of the reason, it is agreed that the Applicant did not work after May 2018.

7In 2023, the Respondent sponsored the Applicant and M’s immigration to Canada. They obtained their permanent residency on August 8, 2023, came to Toronto, and moved with the Respondent into an apartment in a building that he owned on Salem Avenue. The parties separated less than three months later on November 3, 2023. The Applicant and M. remained in the Salem Avenue apartment and the Respondent moved into a newly constructed laneway apartment unit located at the same address. Since the separation, the Respondent has provided the Applicant with a monthly payment of $1,000 (although the Applicant’s evidence is that he is not consistent in how much he pays) and has paid for the cable, utilities, and internet for the Salem Avenue apartment. The Applicant does not pay rent to the Respondent for the apartment.

8The Respondent earns income from various rental properties in Toronto and Brazil. The Applicant is currently employed as a Customer Advisor with the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC). She earns an annual salary of $45,000.

9The Applicant is M’s primary caregiver. Further to the Order of Justice Presser dated January 12, 2025, when the Respondent is in Canada, he has daily parenting time with M. (including overnight from Tuesday to Thursday evening, and alternating Friday and Saturday overnight visits). The parties offer contradictory accounts as to how much time the Respondent actually spends with M. when he is Canada.

Issue One: What is the Respondent’s income for support purposes?

10The Respondent’s line 15000 income for the past three years is as follows: $39,091 (2024), -$23, 517 (2023), and $38,837 (2022). The Respondent acknowledges that these amounts do not reflect his true income for support purposes and instead seeks an order imputing an income of $93,376 to him. The Applicant seeks an order imputing an income to the Respondent of $390,028.78. The bases for these different figures will be set out below.

Imputing Income at a Motion

11Section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines permits the court to impute such amount of income to a parent or spouse as it considers appropriate in the circumstances: O. Reg. 391/97. A non-exhaustive list of these circumstances is set out in s. 19(1); they include:

(d) it appears that income has been diverted which would affect the level of child support to be determined under these guidelines;

(e) the parent’s or spouse’s property is not reasonably utilized to generate income; …

(g) the parent or spouse unreasonably deducts income from expenses;

(h) the parent or spouse derives a significant portion of income from dividends, capital gains or other sources that are taxed at a lower rate than employment or business income or that are exempt from tax

12Income may be imputed on a motion for interim support. Motions are limited by the evidence available at this stage of the proceeding, and cases where income has been imputed generally involve the presence of some type of documentary evidence which assists the court in reaching an estimation of the appropriate income: Stoyshin v. Stoyshin, [2007] 15478 (ON SC). It is incumbent on the person seeking a finding of imputation of income to provide the court with sufficient information from which a reasonable inference could be drawn: K.A.S. v. C.D.S., [2002] MBQB 274, at para. 20.

13As noted, the Respondent earns his income from rental properties in Toronto and Brazil. He has an ownership interest in six triplexes in Toronto and four apartments in Brazil. His evidence is that he co-owns all of these properties with his mother and his sister. He further deposes that relatives in Uruguay and Chile (the “Garcia family”) have made financial contributions to many of these properties as an investment and thus have a beneficial interest. According to the Respondent, the rental income earned from these properties is shared between himself, his sister, his mother, and the Garcia family.

14The Respondent also earned a modest income as an interpreter in 2024, which he did not report on his T1 tax return.

2024 Income Earned in Toronto: Evidence

15The Respondent retained a chartered business valuator, Steve Skrlac, to prepare a Guideline Income Analysis of his earnings for 2024 (the “Income Report”). Mr. Skrlac completed the Income Report on October 28, 2025. The report focuses solely on income earned from the six Toronto properties and does not consider any potential income available to the Respondent from the Brazil properties. The six Toronto properties are: the Salem property (triplex plus laneway unit), the Oxford property, the Spadina property, the Bathurst property, the Essex property, and the Lippincott property.

16The Income Report provides six different scenarios for the Respondent’s income. Three of these scenarios permit deductions from rental income for one-time expenses incurred by the Respondent in 2024 (construction/repair expenses for the Salem laneway unit and the Essex property and legal fees for a landlord/tenant dispute in relation to the Bathurst property). The Applicant’s position is that these non-recurring expenses are not properly deducted from the Respondent’s 2024 income, and the Respondent does not dispute this for the purposes of determining his income for temporary support. Accordingly, I will consider only the three remaining scenarios, which exclude the one-time expense amounts.

17The need for three different scenarios arises from the fact that the legal ownership of the properties as registered on title differs from the percentage ownership reported by the Respondent on his T1 tax returns, neither of which reflect the arrangements for sharing rental income that the Respondent has purportedly made with the Garcia family.

18Scenario One calculates the Respondent’s income based on his legal interest on title to each of the Toronto properties, as follows:

Salem Property

33.3% (remaining owners are the Respondent’s mother and sister, who each own 1/3 share).

Oxford Property

33.3% (remaining owners are the Respondent’s mother and sister, who each own 1/3 share).

Spadina Property

33.3% (remaining owners are the Respondent’s mother and sister, who each own 1/3 share).

Bathurst Property

50% (the Respondent’s sister holds the other 50%).

Essex Property

1/3 (remaining owners are the Respondent’s mother and sister, who each own 1/3 share).

Lippincott Property

100% owned by the Respondent.

19Scenario Two is based on the Respondent owning 100% of all six properties, which is what he reported on his 2022, 2023, and 2024 tax returns. The Respondent claimed rental income for all of the units in the six properties on his tax returns, except for the rent for two units that he says his sister claimed. He advised Mr. Skrlac that this was done for convenience. In his affidavit for the motion, he states that he has historically claimed all of the rental income on his personal tax returns because his sister, a teacher, was already paying a lot in taxes and because his mother, a senior, was receiving benefits from the government.

20Scenario Three is based on the Respondent’s explanation to Mr Skrlac of how rental income and expenses for each property are shared between him, his mother, his sister, and the Garcia family. This explanation was supplemented by a “Will Say Statement” signed by a Garcia family member and supplied to Mr. Skrlac. In particular, Scenario Three outlines the Respondent’s income based on his legal interest on title to each of the Toronto properties as follows:

Salem Property

33.3%: All income/expenses are shared equally by the Respondent, his mother and his sister.

Oxford Property

33.3%: All income/expenses are shared equally by the Respondent, his mother, and his sister.

Spadina Property

16.667%: The Respondent, his mother and his sister share net income from the top and main floor units, after deducting expenses for the top, main floor and basement units. The Garcia family receives rent from the basement unit.

This income-sharing arrangement is based on the Respondent, his mother, and his sister jointly owning the top and main floor units and the Garcia family being entitled to the basement. According to the Will Say Statement (as summarized in the Income Report), the Garcia family contributed $150,000 to the downpayment for this property in 2006 and $80,000 to the cost of renovations. There is no other documentation to support this.

There is also no documentation to support the payments of rental income to the Garcia family. The Respondent advised Mr. Skrlac that cash is taken by him, his sister or mother whenever they visit the Garcia family and as such there is no paper trail

Bathurst Property

This income-sharing arrangement is based on the Respondent, his mother, and his sister jointly owning the top and main floor units and the Garcia family being entitled to the basement. According to the Will Say Statement, the Garcia family contributed $399,985 to the downpayment for this property in 2011. In support of this, the Respondent has provided a copy of a bank transfer from Alicia Garcia to Rossana Marmoria (the Respondent’s sister) and Olga Laferla (his mother) in this amount, dated October 28, 2011.

There is no documentation to support the payments of rental income to the Garcia family. The Respondent advised Mr. Skrlac that cash is taken by him, his sister or mother whenever they visit the Garcia family and as such there is no paper trail

Essex Property

0%: the Respondent maintains that he and his sister hold this property in trust for their mother. There is no trust documentation for this arrangement.

Lippincott Property

16.667%: the Respondent, his mother and sister share net income from the top floor unit, after deducting expenses for the top and main units, equally. The Garcia family receives rent for the main unit.

This income-sharing arrangement is based on the Respondent holding the property in trust for the Garcia family. There is no trust documentation for this arrangement. The Will Say statement indicates that a Garcia family member cohabited with the Respondent’s sister in this property from 2008 to 2018, and that in 2014 the Garcia family invested approximately $370,000 to purchase the property privately. The Respondent has provided copies of two bank transfers to Agustina Saenz Garcia on October 24, 2014, one for USD $71,685 from Shiny Alegre and the other for USD $99,958 from Salomao Schvartzman. He asserts that these documents represent payments from the Garcia family to facilitate the purchase of the Lippincott property; however, there is nothing tracing these payments to the property.

The Will Say also states that the Garcia family has received $126,900 in cash in regard to this property from the Respondent’s sister, which was delivered over several visits between 2019 and 2022.

21According to the Income Report, the Will Say further states:

As foreign owners, it was not easy for us to be added to title so we were not added to title. This was not important to us as we trust the Marmorias. Often we paid the downpayment on the properties and the Marmorias paid the mortgage and expenses. We needed them to pay the ongoing expenses and they needed us to pay the downpayment. Neither of us could have purchased the properties without the other. Often, when the Marmorias travel from Toronto to Brazil, they may drive across the border to Uruguay to visit us. They often bring cash for us as it is easier than electronically transferring the funds to us.

22The Respondent’s ownership in the six properties under the three income scenarios set out in the Income Report is summarized as follows:

Salem

Oxford

Spadina

Bathurst

Essex

Lippincott

Scenario One: Legal ownership reflected on title

33%

50%

33%

100%

Scenario Two: Ownership report on T1 Tax return

100%

Scenario Three: Ownership based on trust claims

33%

16.67%

23Mr. Skrlac determined the Respondent’s income in 2024 for each of these scenarios as follows:

Scenario One

Scenario Two

Scenario Three

$164,000

$319,000

$68,000

24To arrive at these figures, Mr. Skrlac used the net rental income for each property and attributed it to the Respondent based on his percentage ownership under each scenario. He then added an income tax gross up on the Respondent’s personal expenses, his income from interpreting, and an income tax gross up on the interpreting income. For the purposes of this motion, both parties appear to accept Mr. Skrlac’s methodology in arriving at these income figures. Unsurprisingly, the Applicant’s position is that Scenario Two most accurately reflects the Respondent’s Canadian income (subject to some additions, discussed below), whereas the Respondent asserts that the Scenario Three income is most accurate.

Income Earned in Toronto: Analysis & Findings

25I find that Scenario One (legal ownership as reflected on title) provides the best estimate of the actual funds which the Respondent has available to discharge his support obligations.

26First, I am satisfied that the income calculation from Scenario Two (100% legal ownership reported on T1 tax returns for last five years) likely exceeds the Respondent’s actual Ontario income.

27The Respondent deposes that he, his mother, and his sister jointly operate the rental properties. This is supported by the following documentation: (1) with the exception of the Lippincott property, title to all six properties is held jointly by the Respondent and his mother or sister; (2) rental income and expenses from these properties are managed in bank accounts held jointly by the Respondent and his sister and mother; (3) the Respondent, his sister and his mother are all named on the mortgages registered against the Spadina property; and (4) the Respondent and his sister are both named on the mortgages registered against the Bathurst property.

28It is reasonable to infer from the above that the Marmorias would share in the net income from these properties. Thus, notwithstanding the representations made by the Respondent on his T1 tax return, I am persuaded that not all of the rental income should be attributed to him. However, there is no documentation setting out how the Marmorias actually share the net rental income generated from these properties. There are only the statements made by the respondent to Mr. Skrlac, which the respondent deposes to be accurate. This information has not been tested through cross-examination and I am unable to assess its reliability.

29I am unable to accept the facts underlying Scenario Three based on the evidence before me. There is no reliable documentation to support the assertions made by the Respondent and the Garcia family to Mr. Skrlac. As noted above, the Respondent has supplied copies of three bank transfers from the Garcia family but these cannot be traced to the properties in question. There is also no sworn evidence from the Garcia family members, the Respondent’s sister, or his mother. The reliability of the Respondent’s assertions can only be determined by a trial judge hearing viva voce evidence, who can properly assess the credibility of the Respondent and his witnesses.

30In sum, I cannot reasonably infer from the evidence provided that the Respondent’s income from the Toronto properties is that generated from Scenario Three. For the purposes of making an interim determination of the Respondent’s income, I find that the percentage ownership on title is the most reliable proxy for how the Marmorias share the net rental income generated from the six properties.

31While Mr. Skrlac determined that the Respondent’s total 2024 income under Scenario One was $164,000 (including grossed up personal expenses and interpreter income), the Applicant is seeking to impute income to the Respondent solely based only on the net rental income he earned under this scenario: $153,586. In the absence of any evidence about the personal expenses and the interpreter income, I accept this approach.

32The Applicant also brings the court’s attention to the Respondent’s claim that she is currently receiving the equivalent of $3,145 in support from him because he does not charge her rent for the top floor of the Salem property where she and M. reside. The Respondent’s position is that this unit could be rented for at least $2,500 per month. The applicant argues that if $2,500 is characterized as support to her, then $2,500 per month (or $30,000 per year) should be added to the respondent’s income as notional rent. She notes that attributing $2,500 to her in support is equivalent to her paying the respondent $2,500 per month in rent; further, the respondent receives the benefit of a deduction of support payable in lieu of a payment of rent.

33I am persuaded by this argument. Additionally, once the applicant moves out of the Salem property, the unit will in fact be available for rent. Under Scenario One, one-third of the rental income for Salem is attributable to the respondent. One-third of $30,000 is $10,000. When added to the net rental income figure determined in the Income Report for Scenario One, the Respondent’s 2024 Ontario income figure becomes $163,586 for support purposes.

2024 Income Earned in Brazil: Evidence

34The Respondent’s total annual income in Brazil for 2024 is unknown.

35The Respondent has sole title to four apartments in Brazil; however, his evidence is that, notwithstanding legal title, he co-owns these apartments with his mother, his sister, and the Garcia family. He states that one apartment is never rented out as he and his mother stay there when they are in Brazil. The other three apartments are rented out periodically on a short term basis through the website booking.com.

36The Applicant reviewed the Respondent’s Brazilian bank account statements for January 1 to October 4, 2024 and identified $51,568.78 in short-term rental deposits from booking.com. The Applicant requested bank account statements after October 4, 2024, but the Respondent did not disclose them; as such, there is no information about booking.com deposits for October through December 2024. The Respondent’s evidence is that his rental income from the three apartments was approximately $51,568. He further states that he incurred monthly expenses for the rental properties amounting to $24,744, which included condo fees, city taxes, internet, utilities, and payment for a cleaner. This leaves a net income of $26,824.

37The Respondent states that the Garcia family contributed to the downpayments of two of the apartments and are entitled to half the net rental income for those apartments. As such, his position is that he is entitled to only two-thirds (66.66%) of the net income of the three apartments; namely, $17,703.

38The Applicant’s position is that the full amount of the gross rental income ($51,568) should be included in the Respondent’s income for support purposes. She states that the Respondent has failed to provide any supporting documents for the rental expenses and has not disclosed documentary proof of the contributions the Garcia family made to the downpayments or the rental income they have received from the properties.

Income Earned in Brazil: Analysis

39As noted by then Madsen J. in Evans v. Evans 2023 ONSC 3919, evidence is required for courts to assess whether an amount less than gross rental income should be included in income for support purposes. The onus is on the party claiming expenses against gross rental income to show that those expenses are reasonable within the meaning of the Guidelines. As the Respondent has not provided supporting documentation for his claimed rental expenses, I find that he has not met this onus. Similarly, in the absence of reliable evidence, I am unable to accept that the Garcia family is entitled to one-third of the rental income. Finally, I note that $51,568 only accounts for 9 months of rental bookings in 2024 and that the actual gross rental income for 2024 is likely higher.

Total Income for Support Purposes

40In summary, I find that the Respondent’s total income for support purposes is $215,154 (income in Ontario of $163,586 plus income earned from rental properties in Brazil of $51,568). The temporary child and spousal support orders shall be made using an income of $215,154 for the Respondent and are made on a without prejudice basis for the parties to seek retroactive adjustments at trial. If it turns out that the Respondent’s income is more in line with Scenario Two, for instance, then the Applicant will be entitled to a retroactive adjustment at trial. If the Respondent is able to provide better evidence at trial of the trust arrangements with his family members and the Garcias and his actual income proves to be lower, then he will be entitled to a retroactive adjustment at trial.

Issue Two: What Order for temporary child support should be made?

41The table amount of child support based on an income of $215,154 for one child is $1822.00 per month.

Issue Three: What contributions, if any, should the Respondent make to section 7 expenses on an interim basis?

42The Applicant seeks an order that the parties pay for the following expenses in proportion to their incomes, such that she pays 35% and the Respondent pays 65%: daycare ($120 per week for a babysitter on Friday nights and Saturdays when the Applicant is working, or $6,240 per year), taekwondo ($202 per month), Dovercourt Club ($170 per month), and summer camp ($300 per month in the summer). She states that the Respondent has been paying for the latter two expenses, but refuses to contribute to daycare and taekwondo.

43The Respondent states that he has, in fact, contributed a disproportionate share of M.’s s. 7 expenses. He solely paid Dovercourt before and after care ($135 per month), summer camp ($180 per week for nine weeks of summer), gymnastics and swimming ($766 in 2025), and a Wonderland season’s pass ($100). He says that he did not consent to Taekwondo but the Applicant registered M. anyway, and that he was not aware that the Applicant needed to hire a babysitter on Fridays and Saturdays . He also states that he buys clothes very frequently for M.

44S. 7(1) of the Child Support Guidelines provides as follows:

In an order for the support of a child, the court may, on the request of either parent or spouse or of an applicant under section 33 of the Act, provide for an amount to cover all or any portion of the following expenses, which expenses may be estimated, taking into account the necessity of the expense in relation to the child’s best interests and the reasonableness of the expense in relation to the means of the parents or spouses and those of the child and to the spending pattern of the parents or spouses in respect of the child during cohabitation:

(a) childcare expenses incurred as a result of the employment, illness, disability or education or training for employment of the parent or spouse who has the majority of parenting time;

(b) that portion of the medical and dental insurance premiums attributable to the child;

(c) health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100 annually, including orthodontic treatment, professional counselling provided by a psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist or any other person, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses and contact lenses;

(d) extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education or for any other educational programs that meet the child’s particular needs;

(e) expenses for post-secondary education; and

(f) extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities.

45The onus is on the parent seeking the special or extraordinary expenses to prove that the claimed expenses fall within one of the categories under s. 7 and that the expenses are necessary and reasonable, having regard to the parental financial circumstances: Park v. Thompson, 2005 14132 (ON CA), [2005] 77 O.R. (3d) 601; (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 26-27.

46I am satisfied that the babysitter expense, Dovercourt Club (described by the Respondent as before and after care), and summer camp fall into the s. 7(1) (a) category. In order to work, the Applicant will require childcare for M., particularly when the Respondent is in Brazil. I do not consider the expenses related to M.’s extracurricular activities to fall within s. 7(1)(f) as they are not “extraordinary”. Expenses for usual or ordinary extracurricular activities for a particular family are included in the table amount of support: see, Smith v. Smith, [1997] O.J. No. 4833 (Ont. Gen. Div.), at paras. 14, 16; Park v. Thompson; Kase v. Bazinet, [2011], ONCJ 718, 16 R.F.L. (7th) 746.

47Accordingly, I order that the parties shall share the cost of the following three expenses: babysitting, Dovercourt Club, and summer camp, in proportion to their incomes for support purposes. I recognize that the actual expenses may vary from month to month, depending to some extent on whether the Respondent is in Toronto and available to assist with childcare. However, for the purposes of calculating spousal support, I will assume that the total annual expense amount to $9,910 (consisting of $6,240 for the babysitter, $2,050 for the Dovercourt club, and $1,620 for 9 weeks of summer camp).

48The Applicant’s 2024 income is $45,000. Once the temporary spousal support payments (detailed below) are accounted for, the Applicant will be responsible for 40 percent of these s. 7 expenses and the Respondent will be responsible for 60 percent.

Issue Four: Is the Respondent entitled to temporary spousal support?

Temporary Spousal Support: Statutory Framework and General Principles

49As the parties were not married, the Family Law Act, R.S.O., 1990 c.F.3 governs. Sections 33 and 34 of the Family Law Act provide the court with jurisdiction to make an interim or final order for spousal support. Section 33(8) directs that an order for spousal support should:

(a) recognize the spouse’s contribution to the relationship and the economic consequences of the relationship for the spouse;

(b) share the economic burden of child support equitably;

(d) relieve financial hardship, if this has not been done by orders under Parts I (Family Property) and II (Matrimonial Home).

50 Section 33(9) of the Family Law Act directs the court, when determining the amount and duration of spousal support, to consider all the circumstances of the parties, including:

(a) the dependant’s and respondent’s current assets and means;

(b) the assets and means that the dependant and respondent are likely to have in the future;

(d) the respondent’s capacity to provide support;

(e) the dependant’s and respondent’s age and physical and mental health;

(f) the dependant’s needs, in determining which the court shall have regard to the accustomed standard of living while the parties resided together;

(g) the measures available for the dependant to become able to provide for his or her own support and the length of time and cost involved to enable the dependant to take those measures;

(h) any legal obligation of the respondent or dependant to provide support for another person;

(i) the desirability of the dependant or respondent remaining at home to care for a child;

(j) a contribution by the dependant to the realization of the respondent’s career potential;

(k) Repealed: 1997, c. 20, s. 3 (3).

(l) if the dependant is a spouse,

(i) the length of time the dependant and respondent cohabited,

(ii) the effect on the spouse’s earning capacity of the responsibilities assumed during cohabitation,

(iii) whether the spouse has undertaken the care of a child who is of the age of eighteen years or over and unable by reason of illness, disability or other cause to withdraw from the charge of his or her parents,

(iv) whether the spouse has undertaken to assist in the continuation of a program of education for a child eighteen years of age or over who is unable for that reason to withdraw from the charge of his or her parents,

(v) any housekeeping, child care or other domestic service performed by the spouse for the family, as if the spouse were devoting the time spent in performing that service in remunerative employment and were contributing the earnings to the family’s support,

(vi) the effect on the spouse’s earnings and career development of the responsibility of caring for a child; and

(m) any other legal right of the dependant to support, other than out of public money.

51Case law has identified the principles that apply to temporary motions for spousal support, which are summarized by Kraft J. in Liddell-MacInnis v. MacInnis 2021 ONSC 1787, para. 65 as follows:

(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 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.

Prima Facie Entitlement to Spousal Support

52Under the seminal cases of Moge v. Moge, 1992 25 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813 and Bracklow v. Bracklow 1999 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 are 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 involve 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 form 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”.

Analysis

53The Applicant submits that she is entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds. Her evidence is that she had a successful career working in banking in Brazil, which she gave up in 2018 to become a stay-at-home mother to M. and to assist the Respondent in his rental business. She describes work she did to manage the finances and accounting for the short-term rentals, as well as cleaning the units between rentals. She deposes that she moved with M. to Toronto at the Respondent’s request, as they both wanted M. to be raised in Toronto for safety reasons and better future opportunities.

54The Applicant also provided evidence of her efforts to find employment in Toronto. This search was challenging because of her 5-year absence from the workforce, lack of Canadian work experience or education, and the fact that English is not her first language. On September 9, 2024, she began a position as a Banking Advisor Intern with RBC earning an annual salary of $52,000. She had to take time off work to care for M. during an illness and missed training classes. As a result, she was demoted to the position of Customer Advisor in January 2025 and now earns an annual salary of $45,000.

55The Respondent’s evidence is that the Applicant refused to return to work after M.’s birth and that it was her choice to move to Canada. He maintains that he has always resided in both countries and would have been able to see M. frequently if they had stayed in Brazil. He believes that the Applicant decided she wanted to separate before she moved to Toronto and used him as her way to enter Canada, in the hopes of receiving money. He disputes her contributions to his rental business. Finally, he points to the fact that at the peak of her banking career in Brazil, she earned the equivalent of CAD $25,427. As such, his position is that because she is now earning more than she ever has, she was advantaged by the relationship and the move to Toronto.

56I find that the Applicant has established a prima facie entitlement to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds.

57Several factors support a triable compensatory claim in this case. It is not possible for me to determine what decisions the parties made about their respective roles in the relationship and the move to Canada on the basis of a conflicted written record. However, the fact remains that the Applicant was home with M. full-time for five years prior to the separation and that she continues to be M.’s primary caregiver. During the extended periods (at least four months a year, based on the Respondent’s evidence) that the Respondent has lived in another country, the Applicant is and has been M’s sole caregiver. The Applicant’s struggles to secure employment and a liveable wage are tied to her childcare responsibilities during and after the relationship and the move to Toronto. With a five-year gap in her resume, lack of Canadian work experience, and developing English language skills, I accept that there have been few opportunities available to her. Even after she secured employment, I note that her childcare responsibilities prevented her from completing the required training which led to her demotion.

58The Applicant has also established a prima facie non-compensatory entitlement on the basis that she is experiencing economic hardship. I am satisfied that she would struggle to make ends meet in Toronto meet on a salary of $45,000, even with the Respondent providing her with accommodation and a monthly stipend of $1,000. Furthermore, the accommodation provided is not an adequate long-term residence. The Applicant’s evidence is that it is infested with rats, has only a kitchenette rather than a full kitchen, and does not have a reliable heat or air-conditioning system.

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

59As noted earlier, assuming that a triable case exists, interim spousal support is to be based primarily on the motion judge’s assessment of the parties’ means and needs. The primary goal is to provide income for the dependent spouse until the trial, maintaining the accustomed lifestyle to the extent possible.

60There is not a great deal of evidence about the standard of living that the parties enjoyed during the relationship, other than the Applicant’s references in her evidence to a comfortable life with frequent international travel. However, the Applicant clearly requires more income to be able to meet her basic needs, including securing and maintaining more suitable accommodation, and the Respondent has the means to provide her with this income.

61I have considered the ranges produced by applying the SSAGs. Using the figure of $215,154 for the Respondent’s income, the Respondent will be obliged to pay table child support to the Applicant in the sum of $1,822. The Applicant’s income is $45,000. For the purposes of spousal support, I have assumed that annual s. 7 expenses will amount to $9,910. I have further assumed that that the Applicant will claim a tax deduction of $3,670 for the Dovercourt Club and summer camp expenses, but not for the money that she pays her friend to babysit on Fridays and Saturdays. Applying the “With Child Formula”, the resulting monthly spousal support ranges are $4,474 (low), $5,189 (mid), and $5,916 (high). A DivorceMate calculation is attached to these Reasons at Tab “A”.

62For the reasons below, I find that a temporary award of spousal support in the mid to high range is appropriate:

(a) In my view, based on the untested affidavit evidence, the Applicant has a moderately strong compensatory claim. She was primarily responsible for childcare during the relationship and continues to fulfill this role post-separation. There are lengthy periods of time when the Respondent is in Brazil and she is solely responsible for M.’s care. The Applicant gave up paid employment to care for M. Her earning capacity has been further limited by the move to Toronto and her ongoing childcare responsibilities. Somewhat mitigating these considerations is the fact that this was a short to medium length relationship, between six and a half years to eight years (depending on which party’s cohabitation dates are accepted). The Applicant was only out of the work force for five years, is well-educated and, at age 45, is still relatively young. It is not clear that she suffered “significant economic disadvantage” as a result of the roles during the relationship, although this is a matter that a trial judge will be better positioned to determine. On the whole, my view is that these factors would situate the award in the mid-range.

(b) However, the Applicant’s need for sufficient funds to meet her basic needs (including for appropriate accommodation) would push the award to the higher end of the range. The Applicant has a limited income and earning capacity due to the circumstances outlined above.

(c) The Respondent has proposed that the Applicant continue to live rent-free at the Salem property and that his spousal support obligation be reduced by $2,615 (notional rent of $2,500, plus internet). I do not accept this approach. The Applicant is entitled to establish an independent life for herself post-separation and cannot do so as long as she is required to live in the Salem property. Further, given the condition and size of the unit, this is not a reasonable long-term plan. An award in the higher end of the range, at least on an interim basis, would allow the Applicant to take these steps.

(d) Based on my findings about the Respondent’s income, I find that he has the means to provide spousal support at this level on at least an interim basis. I note that he has the means to maintain a home in two different countries and to travel back and forth on a regular basis.

(e) As the parties were not married, there is no matrimonial property to be divided. This would push the award to the higher end of the range.

63I therefore fix temporary spousal support at $5,550 per month.

Issue Six: When should these child and spousal support orders commence?

64The Respondent asks that any child and spousal support orders commence only after the Applicant has moved out of the Salem property. He states that he cannot afford to pay increased support and provide her with rent-free accommodation.

65I am not prepared to defer the payment of either order. However, the Respondent is entitled to be given credit for the rent-free accommodation on a go-forward basis. Accordingly, so long as the Applicant continues to reside in the Salem property, $2,165 shall be deducted from the monthly spousal support payment to account for rent and internet.

DISPOSITION

66Based on all of the above, this court makes the following temporary without prejudice order:

(a) Pursuant to s.31 of the Family Law Act, starting on February 1, 2026, and on the first day of each following month, the Respondent shall pay the Applicant Table child support of $1,822 a month for one child, M., born on September 18, 2017, based on the Respondent’s annual income of $225,568.

(b) Pursuant to s. 31 of the Family Law Act, starting on February 1, 2026, the Respondent shall pay 60%, and the Applicant shall pay 40% of the following s. 7 expenses for the child totaling $9,910 a year:

i. Summer camp of $1,620 a year;

ii. Dovercourt before- and after-care of $2,050 a year; and

iii. $6,240 a year for the babysitter.

(c) The parties shall proportionately share any additional s. 7 expenses incurred by the Applicant for M., provided that the Applicant obtains the Respondent’s consent prior to incurring the expense, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.

(d) Pursuant to s. 30 of the Family Law Act, starting on the first day of the month following the Applicant moving out of the Salem Road property, and on the first day of each following month, the Respondent shall pay the Applicant temporary spousal support of $5,550 a month, which is the mid-point between the mid-range and high-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, using an income of $215,154 for the Respondent and $45,000 for the Applicant.

(e) For the months that the Applicant continues to reside in the Salem Road property, the Respondent shall deduct the sum of $2,165 from $5,550, such that he shall pay a reduced amount of spousal support in the sum of $3,385 a month, to account for the rent and internet the Applicant receives by residing at the Salem Road property rent-free. This reduced temporary spousal support shall be payable on February 1, 2026 and shall continue on the first day of each following month until the Applicant moves out of the Salem Road property.

(f) The temporary child and spousal support amounts payable under this Order are without prejudice to either party seeking a higher or lower amount at trial, retroactive to the date of this order.

(g) A support deduction order shall issue.

COSTS

67If either party wishes to pursue a claim for costs in connection with this motion, they may serve and file written submissions in accordance with r. 24(19) of the Family Law Rules. I note that, at my request, the parties have already filed bills of costs and offers to settle which I will review if and when submissions are received.

Justice Carolyn Leach

Date: January 23, 2026

Payor , Resident of ON

Income

Rental income (net) 163,586

Other non-taxable income (no gross up) 51,568

Recipient , Resident of ON

Income

Employment income 45,000

Children

Age

Lives with

Table

Claimed

Child 1

Recipient

Yes

Recipient

Dependant credit claimed by Recipient.

Youngest child finishes high school 10 years from the date of separation.

TAB “A” Tools Cloud 2026

Quick Calculation

Child Support (Table) Payor's income over

$150,000; CSG Table Amount may be inappropriate

Payor Recipient Annual Guidelines Income 215,154 45,000

CSG Table Amount (2025) 1,822 0

Child Support (Table) 1,822 0

Length of marriage/cohabitation: 0 years Recipient's age at separation: 0 years

"With Child Support" Formula

Special Expenses Child 1

Payor paid/claimed

Recipient paid/claimed

Child care 0/0 9,910/3,670

Relationship Dates

Date of marriage/cohabitation specify

Date of separation specify

The formula results in a range for spousal support of

$4,453 to $5,901 per month for an indefinite (unspecified) duration, subject to variation and possibly review, with a minimum duration of years and a maximum duration of 10 years from the date of separation.

Missing Information:

Date of Marriage

Date of Separation

Recipient's date of birth

SSAG Considerations: The results of the SSAG formula must be interpreted with regard to: Entitlement; Location within the Ranges; Restructuring; Ceilings and Floors; and Exceptions.

Payor

Recipient

Payor

Recipient

Payor Recipient

Gross Income

17,930

3,750

17,930

3,750

17,930 3,750

Taxes and Deductions

(2,064)

(1,524)

(1,833)

(1,750)

(1,607) (2,006)

Benefits and Credits

272

249

0 226

Special Expenses (s.7)

(826)

0 (826)

Cash Flow Adjustments

0 0

Spousal Support

(4,453)

4,453

(5,172)

5,172

(5,901) 5,901

Child Support (Table)

(1,822)

1,822

(1,822)

1,822

(1,822) 1,822

Child Support (s.7 Payment)

(396)

396

(378) 378

(363) 363

Net Disposable Income (NDI)

adult in household child in household shared/summer child

Percent of NDI

9,195

52.4%

8,343

47.6%

8,725

8,795

8,237 9,230

49.8%

50.2%

47.2% 52.8%

CSG Special Expenses Apportioning %

62.2%

37.8%

58.8%

41.2%

55.5% 44.5%

After-tax Cost/Benefit of Spousal Support

(2,540)

2,984

(3,027)

3,477

(3,530) 3,950