Amirmojahedi v. Rivette, 2016 ONSC 5770

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.