Is it possible to reduce spousal support after a temporary order has been made?

Stewart v. Perelman, 2026 ONSC 4940

In Stewart v. Perelman, Justice Stevenson of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the respondent father’s motion to reduce temporary child and spousal support on the basis of an alleged substantial decline in his income. The existing July 2025 order attributed annual income of $508,000 to the father and required monthly child support of $6,373, monthly spousal support of $11,113, and payment of 73.7% of the children’s s. 7 expenses. 

Central issue and test

The father argued that his income had fallen dramatically: his position was approximately $220,000, while his expert estimated $288,000 for 2025. However, the same expert had previously estimated income of $312,000 for 2024, and the court that made the 2025 support order already knew that his recent income was below earlier levels. 

For an interim support order to be varied before trial, the moving party must establish a strong prima facie case of a material change in circumstances—one that is substantial and continuing and that, if known previously, would probably have resulted in different terms. Alternatively, variation may be justified by undue hardship or where continuing the existing order would be “incongruous and absurd,” including considerations of urgency. 

Court’s reasoning

Justice Stevenson concluded that the father had not demonstrated the necessary material change. His evidence concerning income remained contested and was better determined on a complete evidentiary record at trial. Importantly, there had been no structural deterioration in his business: he had not lost major customers, employees or business contacts, and his 2025 income appeared broadly comparable to 2024. Thus, the new evidence largely reflected the financial circumstances already known when the $508,000 income figure was adopted rather than a genuinely new change arising afterward. 

The court emphasized the policy against repeatedly relitigating temporary support. Interim variation motions increase “stress, uncertainty and costs” and should remain exceptional unless the test is clearly satisfied. The court did leave open reconsideration if the scheduled October 2027 trial is materially delayed. 

The father also failed to establish undue hardship. Although he had apparently liquidated approximately $200,000 of roughly $500,000 in RRSPs, he possessed substantial assets, including approximately $3 million in home equity and a rental property. The court therefore found his claimed lack of liquidity insufficient to justify reducing support. It was particularly critical of his unilateral failure to comply with the existing order, stating that “Self-help is not an appropriate option for a man of his evident means.” 

Other issues

The court declined to impute $40,000 of income to the mother. Her year of unemployment was not regarded as a material change, particularly because the father had terminated her employment with his company. The issue could, however, be revisited if she remained unemployed or underemployed by the October 2027 trial. 

The one issue left open was the treatment of the children’s s. 7 special or extraordinary expenses, which exceeded $32,000 annually. The court was willing to consider whether these expenses should affect future child and spousal support calculations, but only after the father brings all existing support arrears up to date. Any adjustment would operate from the date compliance is achieved, rather than retroactively rewarding his non-compliance. 

Significance

The decision reinforces the high threshold for varying temporary support before trial, particularly where income is complicated by self-employment. A new annual income figure that differs from the income attributed under an existing order is not, by itself, a material change: the court looks at whether circumstances have actually changed since the earlier order, rather than simply whether better or newer evidence could support a different calculation.

It also sends a strong compliance message. A payor cannot effectively create his own temporary variation by reducing or stopping court-ordered support and then rely on cash-flow difficulties while retaining substantial assets. Here, the father must first comply with the existing order, after which the narrower s. 7 calculation can be reconsidered. The mother’s enforcement cross-motion was adjourned with permission to restore it if necessary, while costs remained to be determined through written submissions. 

Conclusion:

Clients often come to me to see how their spousal support can be reduced. In fact, after temporary decisions are made ordering payment of spousal support, the issue of affordability arises. In practical terms, it becomes almost impossible for the payor to continue to make spousal support payments.

What can a client do under such a circumstance? How do we revisit an issue where a temporary order has been made? This case provides some guidance. We have to show a material change of circumstances, combined with possible undue hardship. Spousal support is one of the most challenging aspects of a family case, but at Shankar Law, with careful research, our knowledge of common law (which is case law) and application to your facts, we will do our best to protect your interests.

We hope that blogs like these will assist clients in gaining the required knowledge and also making the right decision to search for a competent lawyer to help them. We look forward to serving you at our physical offices in southwestern Ontario, including Walkerton, Goderich - connected through our Kincardine office, Port Elgin, Owen Sound, or anywhere in Ontario.