By Maria Golarz, Senior Associate Research Lawyer, Lam Family Law, and
Vanessa Lam, Strategic Advisor and Research Lawyer, Lam Family Law*

This is the first in Lam Family Law’s new “Back to Basics” blog series, which provides an overview of key family law topics.

As family lawyers, understanding the principles governing interim spousal support is critical to effectively advising clients during the initial stages of a separation or divorce. In this post, we review the legislative framework that applies in Ontario, guiding principles on a motion for interim spousal support, and recent case law examples. We end with some strategic considerations that often arise when considering interim spousal support.

Legal Framework for Interim Spousal Support

Spousal support in Ontario is governed by s 15.2 of the Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.) (for married or previously married couples) and ss 33-34 of the Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c. F.3 (“FLA”) (for qualifying common-law couples). These statutes allow courts to award interim spousal support (s 15.2(2), Divorce Act; s 34(1), FLA). These orders recognize that immediate financial assistance may be necessary to prevent hardship during the separation process.

In making a spousal support order, s 15.2(4) of the Divorce Act specifies the factors that shall be considered in making either a final or interim order for spousal support. Namely, the court shall take into consideration the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse, including:

  • (a) the length of time the spouses cohabited;
  • (b) the functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation; and
  • (c) any order, agreement or arrangement relating to support of either spouse.

The objectives of either a final or interim order are set out in s 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act, which provides that an order for 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.

See also ss 33(8) (purposes of an order for spousal support) and (9) (determination of amount for support of spouses) of the FLA.

Note that the legislation does not differentiate how these factors should be taken into consideration in the context of a final versus an interim order. Instead, case law has explained the principles that guide an interim award align closely with those used for final spousal support. However, specific guiding principles apply given the more limited nature of a motion for interim spousal support compared to the more in-depth inquiries that can be dealt with at trial.

Guiding Principles

On a motion for interim spousal support, the following principles are applicable:

  • (a) The claimant has the onus of establishing 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) If a claimant cannot establish an arguable case for entitlement, the motion should be dismissed, even if the claimant has need and the other party has 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 support is to provide income for a dependent spouse from the time the proceedings commence until the time of trial. Interim support is meant to be in the nature of a “holding order” to, insomuch as possible, maintain the accustomed lifestyle or marital “standard of living” pending trial.
  • (e) Assuming 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.
  • (f) The SSAG [Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (Ottawa, Department of Justice Canada, 2008)] is a non-binding guideline that provides a “valuable litmus test” for assessing both the range and the duration of support.: Liddell-MacInnis v. MacInnis, 2021 ONSC 1787 (CanLII), at para 65, citing various cases. See also Sondhi v. Sondhi, 2022 ONSC 202 (CanLII), at para 11, citing various cases, leave to appeal ref’d, 2022 ONSC 1510 (Div Ct).

 
Recent Case Law Examples

  • Low-range: Evans v. Chambers, 2025 ONSC 235 (CanLII), Rhinelander J., at paras 42-45 [low-range interim support to provide each party with equal net disposable income (a higher amount would create an uneven distribution of net disposable income where parties had equal shared parenting); low-range also to reflect parties’ former lifestyle and to consider sacrifices made to claimant’s career when she stepped away to care for children and home];
  • Low-range: Frank v. Martin, 2025 ONSC 1426 (CanLII), MacFarlane J., at paras 55-66 [low-range interim support considering payor’s post-retirement income; court not persuaded that claimant had prima facie compensatory claim but found prima facie right to spousal support on non-compensatory basis];
  • Mid-range: Crozier v. Nolin, 2024 ONSC 4343 (CanLII), Jensen J., at paras 45-47 [mid-range interim support based on claimant’s role in the home (as caregiver and homemaker) prior to separation, parties’ current incomes (including claimant’s limited imputed income), and claimant’s current role as primary parent; however, actual amount could not be determined due to outstanding s. 7 expense claims, which the court encouraged the parties to resolve, perhaps with the assistance of a mediator];
  • High-range/beyond range: Hani v Shadid, 2024 ONSC 3619 (CanLII), Diamond J., at paras 1-3 & 12-15 [interim support beyond SSAG range where ordering an amount within range would not allow claimant to live and pursue a career; claimant had obvious need for financial support while retraining in costly dental hygienist program; court found compelling financial circumstances justifying departure from SSAG];
  • No interim support: Manji v. Manji, 2025 ONSC 1063 (CanLII), Rhinelander J., at paras 89-91 [claimant had access to funds and had initiated a litigation scheme to bankrupt the other party by, in part, seeking support; claimant failed to establish a prima facie case for spousal support].

Strategic Considerations

  • Conceptual basis: It is important to understand the three different conceptual bases for spousal support. A claimant may have entitlement to interim support on one basis, but not other bases (e.g. non-compensatory, but not compensatory or contractual): see, e.g., Frank v. Martin, 2025 ONSC 1426 (CanLII), at paras 54-57, citing the still-leading cases of Bracklow v. Bracklow, 1999 CanLII 715 (SCC) & Moge v. Moge, 1992 CanLII 25 (SCC).
  • SSAG/RUG: Review the SSAG and Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines: The Revised User’s Guide (Ottawa, Department of Justice Canada, 2016) (“RUG”). While the SSAG and RUG do not govern entitlement, they provide relevant definitions and considerations. The court will also want to see the SSAG calculations on an interim support hearing, so prepare these ahead of time.
  • Start date: The date of the initiation of proceedings for spousal support is the “usual commencement date” for the support order, absent a reason to order otherwise: Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10 (CanLII), at paras 209-211, citing MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, 2005 CanLII 13191 (ON CA).
  • Delay: If interim spousal support is not claimed early in the process, the claimant will need to explain the reason for delay in any later motion for interim support: Karlovic v. Karlovic, 2018 ONSC 4233 (CanLII), at paras 1 & 56-72.
  • Tax implications: Remember that periodic payments of spousal support made pursuant to a written agreement or court order are tax deductible by the payor, and are taxable in the recipient’s hands: see Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp), ss 56-60.1; Colivas v. Colivas, 2013 ONSC 5904 (CanLII), at para 37.
  • Third-party payments: The calculation of interim support is often complicated if the payor seeks reimbursement/credit for, or to characterize as spousal support, payments made to third parties for the benefit of the recipient. For example, payments for rent, carrying costs of the family home, car expenses, etc. In such cases, the court should consider the status quo of who paid for expenses in the past, who benefits from the expenses, and the timing of a claim for reimbursement/credit: Lesko v. Lesko, 2021 ONCA 369 (CanLII), at para 54.
     
    A motion judge may leave it to the trial judge to re-adjust and/or re-characterize these payments. However, a motion judge may consider third-party payments if there is “sufficient” evidence of such expenses to allow the court to characterize them as support: Colivas v. Colivas, 2013 ONSC 5904 (CanLII), at paras 40-42.

    Because of the different tax treatment, the court must do a careful analysis in comparing any third-party payments with the monthly SSAG calculations: Nani v. Nani, 2021 ONSC 1368 (CanLII), at para 72. Third-party payments may be tax deductible by the payor, and taxable in the recipient’s hands, but only if certain requirements are met: Norris v Norris, 2016 ONSC 7077 (CanLII), at paras 52-56; Income Tax Act, ibid, at ss 56–60.1.

  • Interim arrangements subject to re-adjustment at trial: Practically speaking, it can be hard to readjust spousal support, third-party payments, a claim for occupation rent, and/or post-separation adjustments to equalization. So, it is important to think about appropriate financial arrangements as early as possible after separation. But remember that temporary orders are made with incomplete information, which is why they are made without prejudice to adjustment at trial. The trial judge, with a complete record, can determine what should have been paid compared to what was actually paid: Tsafaroff v. Plejic, 2024 ONSC 5198 (CanLII), at para 8.
  • Interim costs and disbursements: If a party’s ability to finance family litigation generally is an issue, counsel should also consider bringing a motion for the other party to cover part or all of the expenses of carrying on a case, including lawyer fees under R. 24(25) of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (sometimes referred to as interim costs and disbursements).

*with thanks to Sierra Larmand for her suggestions and edits.