Background

In Vali-Farhad v. Haeri, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered a motion by the respondent mother seeking temporary spousal support, child support, and further financial disclosure. The parties had been married since 1993 and had two teenage children. The litigation arose in the context of disputed separation dates, contested income evidence, and sharply conflicting narratives regarding need and entitlement.

The respondent argued that she was “clearly” entitled to interim spousal and child support based on the length of the marriage, income disparity, and alleged financial hardship. The applicant opposed the motion, asserting that the parties had separated years earlier, that the respondent had supported herself for an extended period, and that the evidentiary foundation for interim relief was fundamentally lacking.

Justice Myers dismissed the motion for spousal support and awarded child support at a lower amount than requested, providing pointed guidance on the evidentiary requirements for interim relief.

The Law

Interim support motions are governed by principles of rough justice, efficiency, and proportionality. Courts are not tasked with conducting a full trial at the interim stage, but relief must still be grounded in evidence.

The prevailing legal framework confirms that:

• interim support requires a prima facie case for entitlement;
• need and ability to pay are central considerations;
• courts should avoid resolving contested threshold issues on incomplete records; and
• interim relief must be based on evidence, not inference or rhetoric.

Where facts relevant to entitlement such as separation date, income, or need are seriously disputed, courts are cautioned against granting interim spousal support.

Analysis

Was the Respondent “Clearly” Entitled to Interim Spousal Support?

No. Justice Myers rejected the respondent’s framing of entitlement as “clear” or self-evident. The Court emphasized that repeating words such as “clearly” or “surely” cannot substitute for evidence. Without proof of need or a decline in standard of living, entitlement to non-compensatory support was not established.

The respondent earned a substantial income, had supported herself for years, and failed to provide evidence of any material post-separation hardship.

Did the Evidence Establish a Prima Facie Case for Spousal Support?

No. The respondent did not seek compensatory support and did not allege career sacrifice during the marriage. Her claim was strictly non-compensatory, grounded in need. However, the Court found no evidence showing that her standard of living had declined or that she was unable to meet her own needs.

Her sworn income exceeded $160,000 annually, and the alleged borrowing from a friend raised more questions than it answered. The Court found this insufficient to establish prima facie entitlement.

Did the Length of the Marriage Automatically Justify Interim Support?

No. While the parties’ marriage was lengthy, duration alone does not create entitlement to interim spousal support. Justice Myers reaffirmed that even in long marriages, courts must still assess actual need, particularly where the recipient has been financially independent for an extended period.

Here, the respondent had functioned without support for six to seven years, triggering a rebuttable presumption of self-sufficiency.

How Did the Disputed Separation Date Affect the Analysis?

Significantly. The Court found that the evidence strongly supported a 2016 separation date, not the later date alleged by the respondent. This meant that the respondent had delayed seeking support for several years, undermining her claim of present need.

The delay reinforced the presumption that she was capable of supporting herself without spousal support.

Was the Respondent’s Evidence of Financial Need Persuasive?

No. The Court was troubled by inconsistencies in the respondent’s income evidence and the unusual nature of the alleged loans. The lack of documentation, unclear repayment terms, and evidence suggesting undisclosed business activity made it inappropriate to rely on the respondent’s narrative at the interim stage.

Justice Myers concluded that these were threshold factual disputes better resolved at trial, not on an interim motion.

 

 

 

What Child Support Was Appropriate on an Interim Basis?

Based on the incomes the Court accepted for interim purposes $250,000 for the applicant and $164,000 for the respondent guideline calculations supported net child support of $1,022 per month, which the Court ordered.

Why Was Interim Spousal Support Ultimately Denied?

Because the respondent failed to demonstrate:

• financial need;
• a decline in standard of living; or
• a prima facie entitlement to non-compensatory support.

The Court emphasized that interim support is not automatic and must be anchored in evidence. Where entitlement itself is in serious dispute, restraint is required.

Conclusion

Vali-Farhad v. Haeri is a clear reminder that interim support motions rise or fall on evidence, not assumptions, labels, or rhetorical certainty. Even in long marriages and even where income disparity exists, courts will not grant spousal support absent proof of need.

The decision reinforces several practical lessons:

• interim relief requires a prima facie evidentiary foundation;
• delay in seeking support can undermine entitlement;
• unusual financial arrangements demand scrutiny; and
• contested threshold issues are better left for trial.

For litigants, this case underscores the importance of careful preparation and realistic expectations when bringing interim support motions. For counsel, it highlights the risk of overreliance on argument without evidentiary support