BACKGROUND
This was a motion requiring a determination of whether the applicant wife met the prima facie threshold for entitlement to spousal support. If entitlement was found, the court would also have to determine the income of each party for support purposes, quantum, and whether interim and retroactive orders were appropriate. The parties had a brief relationship: they married in November 2023 and separated in September 2025. There were no children of the marriage. Prior to the parties’ relationship, the wife worked in the areas of marketing, networking, and professional development. The husband was a professional hockey player in Europe. At the time of the motion, he was 50 years old and suffered from multiple significant injuries and chronic pain, causing him to take OxyContin and Morphine long-term. Despite his injuries, he had established a successful demolition company. He also solely owned the matrimonial home in Toronto. The husband claimed that the wife managed all his banking and bookkeeping.
ISSUES
- Has the wife established a prima facie threshold for entitlement of spousal support?
- If so, what are the incomes of the parties and what quantum of support is owing?
- If so, is it appropriate to order retroactive spousal support in the circumstances of this case?
ANALYSIS
Has the wife established a prima facie threshold for entitlement of spousal support?
The wife argued that, in 2023, the husband persuaded her to set aside her own career to manage his personal finances and support his business. Doing so, she claimed she made nominal income and thereby suffered economic loss. The husband took the position that the wife insinuated herself into complete control of his finances because, given his limitations, he was an easy target.
The court found that while there was no clear evidence of any foregone career opportunities for the wife, her involvement with the husband’s finances was extensive and wide-ranging. Further, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the wife conferred an economic benefit on the husband without receiving adequate compensation. However, as the parties’ relationship progressed in this fashion, reliance and expectation were established. In this regard, the wife claimed that the husband consistently reassured her that he would take care of her financially and did so by paying most of their high-end living expenses. Since the parties’ separation, the wife has been unable to pay credit card bills and afford modest living expenses, meanwhile, the husband had ample personal and business income.
The court decided that the strength of the wife entitlement was still to be assessed, however, the current evidence available was enough to establish a prima facie case for support based on:
- the parties’ economic independence,
- the wife’s reliance on the husband and a degree of expectation created as a result of their time together,
- her immediate need, and
- the husband’s means to pay support.
What are the incomes of the parties and what quantum of support is owing?
According to Homsi v Zaya 2009 ONCA 322, there is an onus on the party wishing to impute income to their spouse to prove that the other party is intentionally unemployed or under-employed. The court cited Lo v Lo 2011 ONSC 7663 and Charron v Carriere 2016 ONSC 4719 in explaining that once a prima facie case is established, the onus shifts to the other party. The court is also entitled to draw adverse inferences and impute income to parties that do not provide fulsome financial disclosure.
The husband’s position was that his income should be set at $878,000; a three-year average of his salary from his company. Taking into account self-employment income and actual capital gains, the wife estimated his income to be $1.3 million. The parties agreed that the ‘three-year average’ approach was most appropriate, however, they disagreed on the actual amount.
The court stated that since access to pre-tax corporate income is not the same as retained earnings through a personal corporation, the company’s pre-tax earnings should be attributed to the payor’s income and added to his line 15000 income. This was consistent with the husband’s approach; therefore, the court accepted his income as $878,000.
With respect to the wife’s income, given her skill set, past reported income, and self-employment income, the court found that she was capable of earning at least $35,000 and was imputed to that amount.
Is it appropriate to order retroactive spousal support in the circumstances of this case?
The wife sought an order for retroactive spousal support from December 2025 to the date of the spousal support order, however, the court declined to order such support. The court explained that in short marriages such as this one, time-limited transitional support is often payable to “cushion a drop in a party’s standard of living.” Since the case was in the early stages of litigation, the ongoing spousal support ordered would assist her immediate needs.
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, the court ordered on a temporary basis that mid-range spousal support in the amount of $5,842.50 per month was payable by the husband to the wife based on an imputed income of $878,000 to the husband and $35,000 to the wife.
Attention Legal Counsel: Professional Mediation Services
When your clients have reached an impasse in settlement discussions, Andrew Feldstein offers third-party mediation services specifically designed for cases where both parties have independent legal representation.
Why lawyers refer cases to Andrew:
- 30+ years family law litigation experience providing courtroom-informed reality testing
- Expertise in complex financial matters including business valuations and professional corporations
- Efficient, structured process that respects counsel's time and maintains client relationships
- Flexible scheduling including virtual mediation and travel to counsel offices
Cases we handle: Negotiation stalemates, complex asset division, support calculation disputes, parenting arrangements, multi-jurisdictional matters, and post-separation modifications.
Refer your next mediation: Call Andrew directly at 905-415-1635 ext. 255 or email info@separation.ca. Virtual and in-person sessions available throughout the GTA.