Background

This case arises from ongoing family law litigation between former spouses following the breakdown of a long and complex relationship. Although there were no children of the marriage, the financial entanglement between the parties was substantial. The case came before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on competing motions addressing spousal support, disclosure, and procedural amendments to the pleadings.

The parties’ relationship history was heavily disputed, including disagreements over the length of cohabitation, the timing of separation, and the financial responsibilities assumed during the marriage. These disputes were intertwined with allegations of gambling, dissipation of assets, unaccounted cash withdrawals, and contested property ownership. A matrimonial home had been sold during the litigation, and the net proceeds remained largely in trust, adding another layer of complexity to the parties’ financial positions.

An interim spousal support order had previously been made in August 2015, requiring the respondent husband to pay $1,000 per month in spousal support while also covering all carrying costs associated with the matrimonial home. That order was expressly framed as temporary and contemplated reconsideration once the home was sold.

Issues Before the Court

The applicant wife brought a motion seeking an increase in spousal support and an order making that increase retroactive to October 1, 2015. She also sought leave to amend her application to include a claim arising from an Islamic Marriage Contract, commonly referred to as a Mehr, as well as additional disclosure from the respondent.

The respondent husband brought a competing motion seeking a reduction of spousal support from $1,000 per month to $500 per month. He also requested further disclosure from the applicant and sought payment of certain credit card debts from the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.

Financial Circumstances and Evidence

The matrimonial home was sold in September 2015, resulting in net proceeds of approximately $304,583 remaining in trust after interim distributions. The applicant’s income consisted primarily of Canada Pension Plan disability benefits in the amount of approximately $6,893 annually. She asserted that she had no other income and remained financially dependent.

The respondent received a non-taxable disability pension of approximately $51,000 per year, in addition to CPP disability income of approximately $10,915 annually. He argued that his spousal support obligation should be reduced due to extraordinary medical and disability-related expenses, including medication, insurance, travel for treatment, and the use of a personal support worker.

Justice Maddalena examined these claimed expenses carefully and found that several were insufficiently supported by evidence. Only limited deductions were allowed when assessing the respondent’s income for spousal support purposes. The Court emphasized that assertions of hardship must be supported by reliable documentation, particularly on an interim motion.

Disclosure and Procedural Findings

The parties were sharply divided on disclosure. Justice Maddalena noted that the evidentiary record was fraught with disagreement and that many of the allegations raised by both sides could not be resolved on an interim motion. These included claims relating to gambling losses, misuse of joint funds, foreign property ownership, and the true length of cohabitation.

Rather than attempting to resolve these disputes prematurely, the Court made broad disclosure orders, largely on consent, including the production of bank records, tax returns, casino loss documentation, and solicitor reporting letters relating to property transactions. The Court also granted leave for mutual questioning of the parties.

Spousal Support Determination

The central issue before the Court was spousal support. The respondent argued that his disability, medical expenses, and debt rendered the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines inapplicable. Justice Maddalena rejected that argument, finding that this was not an exceptional case warranting departure from the SSAG framework.

Although the Court accepted that the respondent faced genuine health challenges, the parties’ overall financial position did not meet the narrow criteria required to disregard the Guidelines entirely. Instead, the Court concluded that fairness could be achieved by selecting a figure at the low end of the SSAG range.

Taking into account the applicant’s demonstrated need, the respondent’s ability to pay particularly after the elimination of housing costs following the sale of the matrimonial home and the disputed length of cohabitation, the Court fixed interim spousal support at $1,500 per month. The increase was ordered retroactive to October 1, 2015, the date on which the respondent ceased paying household expenses.

Amendment to Include Mehr Claim

The Court also granted the applicant leave to amend her pleadings to include a claim under an Islamic Marriage Contract. Justice Maddalena emphasized that the merits of the claim were not determinative at the amendment stage. The proposed claim raised a genuine triable issue, and there was sufficient time before trial to permit the amendment without unfair prejudice to the respondent.

Conclusion of the Motion

The Court amended the prior interim support order, granted extensive disclosure, allowed the applicant to amend her pleadings to include the Mehr claim, and deferred numerous contested factual issues to trial. The decision reflects the Court’s cautious approach on interim motions, its reliance on the SSAG framework, and its refusal to make final determinations where credibility and factual disputes require a full evidentiary record.

Analysis

Can spousal support be increased after the matrimonial home is sold, even where an interim order already exists?

Yes. This decision clearly confirms that spousal support can be increased after the sale of the matrimonial home, even where a prior interim support order is already in place. Interim orders are inherently temporary and are designed to respond to circumstances as they exist at a particular point in time. When those circumstances change in a meaningful way, the court retains the discretion to revisit and adjust support.

In this case the original interim order required the respondent to pay modest monthly support while also covering the full carrying costs of the matrimonial home. The order expressly anticipated that the sale of the home would alter the financial landscape and permitted the parties to return to court once that occurred. When the home was sold, a significant expense was eliminated, materially improving the respondent’s ability to pay spousal support.

The Court found that this constituted a material change in circumstances justifying an increase in support. Importantly, the Court ordered the increase retroactive to the date the respondent stopped paying household expenses, recognizing that fairness required the adjustment to reflect the true financial reality once the justification for lower support disappeared. The decision reinforces that interim support is fluid, responsive, and subject to revision when anticipated changes occur.

Can significant debt or disability-related expenses justify ignoring the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines?

Generally, no. This case makes clear that debt and medical expenses, even when significant, do not automatically justify abandoning the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines. Courts treat the SSAG as the central organizing framework for spousal support, and departure is reserved for truly exceptional circumstances.

In this case, although the respondent suffered from disability and incurred medical expenses, the Court found that the parties’ assets exceeded their debts, particularly in light of the substantial proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home. The so-called “debt exception” to the SSAG applies only in narrow circumstances where debts overwhelm assets to such an extent that no guideline amount is workable. That threshold was not met here.

Rather than rejecting the Guidelines, the Court applied them flexibly by selecting a low-range amount to account for the respondent’s financial pressures. This approach reflects the intended function of the SSAG: to promote consistency while allowing courts to account for hardship within the guideline structure rather than abandoning it altogether.

Can a claim under an Islamic marriage contract be added after litigation has already started?

Yes. The decision confirms that a claim arising from an Islamic marriage contract, including a Mehr, can be added after a family law case has already begun. Courts take a broad and flexible approach to amendments, particularly where the claim arises directly from the marriage.

Justice Maddalena emphasized that the test for amending pleadings is not whether the claim will ultimately succeed, but whether it raises a legitimate triable issue and whether allowing it would cause irreparable prejudice. In this case, the proposed Mehr claim was neither frivolous nor abusive and raised legal and factual issues requiring adjudication.

The Court found that there was sufficient time before trial to permit the amendment without compromising procedural fairness. Any potential prejudice could be addressed through timelines and disclosure orders. The decision reflects the family law principle that courts should resolve all financial issues arising from a marriage within a single proceeding wherever possible.

How do courts set interim spousal support when major facts remain disputed?

When key facts are disputed, courts adopt a cautious and pragmatic approach to interim spousal support. Judges avoid making credibility findings or resolving factual disputes that are properly reserved for trial. Instead, they focus on what can be reliably determined on the interim record.

In Amirmojahedi v. Rivette, the parties disputed nearly every material fact, including cohabitation length, gambling losses, debt responsibility, and foreign property ownership. Rather than attempting to resolve these issues prematurely, the Court explicitly identified them as matters for trial.

Despite this uncertainty, the Court still had to address spousal support. Interim support exists to prevent hardship while litigation proceeds. The Court therefore relied on known income sources, the elimination of housing costs, and the applicant’s demonstrated need, selecting a low-range SSAG amount that balanced fairness without prejudging the final outcome.

The decision underscores that disputed facts do not excuse failure to support a spouse in need. Courts will make reasonable interim assumptions to maintain financial stability, with the understanding that final adjustments can be made at trial once the full evidentiary record is available.

Final Takeaway

This case is a clear and instructive decision on interim spousal support, the application of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, procedural amendments, and the limits of interim motion adjudication. It confirms that interim support orders are flexible, that debt and disability rarely justify abandoning the SSAG, and that claims arising from religious marriage contracts can be added mid-litigation where they raise triable issues.

Most importantly, the case reinforces a foundational principle of family law: interim motions are about stabilization, not final judgment. Courts will act pragmatically to preserve fairness while leaving deeply disputed factual matters for trial.