S. Filipovic

The applicant wife brought a motion for temporary spousal support and an advance on equalization from the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home.

The respondent husband opposed, arguing the wife could be self-supporting and that the funds should be restricted due to her alcoholism.

The court found a prima facie case for spousal support entitlement and ordered mid-range support of $3,345 monthly.

The court also ordered the release of the home sale proceeds to the wife, finding the husband's withholding of the funds to be unconscionable.

The respondent husband brought a motion seeking to vary temporary spousal support from the amount set in the parties' separation agreement, citing a reduction in his income due to disability.

He also sought an order requiring the applicant wife to preserve land claim settlement monies she received pursuant to a prior court order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the preservation request was an improper collateral attack on an unappealed order.

The court also declined to vary the spousal support on a temporary basis, finding the current amount was close to the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range and the wife had a monthly deficit.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support under the Family Law Act following the breakdown of a 12‑year common law relationship with no children.

The applicant earned approximately $28,000 annually while the respondent earned about $82,000.

The respondent argued that income should be imputed to the applicant based on his training as a welder, but the court accepted his current income circumstances.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and considering the parties’ respective needs and means, the court determined that interim support was appropriate pending trial.

The respondent was ordered to pay temporary spousal support of $875 per month.

The parties separated in 2010 and agreed to shared custody of their two children.

At trial, the mother sought spousal support, retroactive child support, and retroactive section 7 expenses, while the father sought ongoing child support and section 7 expense contributions.

The court dismissed the mother's claims for spousal support, finding she was financially self-sufficient and had advanced her career during the marriage.

Claims for retroactive child support and section 7 expenses were also dismissed as the father had honoured a prior agreement and contributed appropriately.

Ongoing child support was calculated using a set-off approach, resulting in the father paying $444 per month, with extraordinary section 7 expenses split proportionate to income.