Income Levelling or Budget Analysis on an Interim Spousal Support Motion - What the Court Did in Murphy v. Brennan, 2025 ONSC 7112

In Murphy v. Brennan, Justice Breithaupt Smith was asked to determine the appropriate amount of interim spousal support following a change in the parties’ employment circumstances. While entitlement and child support were not in dispute, the parties took different positions on how the Court should compare the parties’ financial circumstances.

The decision is a useful illustration of how one court approached the choice between income levelling and budget analysis on an interim motion.

The Narrow Issue Before the Court

The parties were operating under a temporary consent order that expressly permitted a review of spousal support if either party’s employment changed. By the time of the motion, the Applicant had obtained full-time employment, and both parties agreed that updated income figures should be used.

The parties shared parenting time for their children and had agreed that set-off child support would apply. There was no dispute regarding entitlement to spousal support. The only issue was quantum, and more specifically, the proper analytical framework for determining it.

The Respondent argued that a budgetary comparison of the parties’ financial statements supported the SSAG “Mid” amount. The Applicant sought the SSAG “High” amount, which resulted from an income-levelling calculation.

Income Levelling in This Case

In Murphy, the income-levelling approach arose because the parties had children and child support was being paid. Under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines with child support, spousal support calculations compare the parties’ net disposable incomes.

That calculation is driven by income, taxes, statutory deductions, child support, and child benefits. It does not attempt to equalize what each party actually spends on housing, transportation, or other household expenses. Instead, it mathematically determines how much income each party has available after child-related obligations are accounted for.

In this case, applying that model produced a range of outcomes, with the High end reflecting an equalization of net disposable income between the parties.

The Budgetary Argument

The Respondent urged the Court to move away from income levelling and instead examine the parties’ actual budgets. Counsel reviewed the parties’ financial statements and argued that the SSAG “Mid” amount better equalized the parties’ real-world standards of living when current expenses, debts, and post-separation financial changes were considered.

Justice Breithaupt Smith acknowledged that this was a thoughtful argument and expressly recognized that rising housing and living costs may make budget analysis an increasingly important consideration in spousal support cases.

Why the Court Declined Budget Analysis Here

Despite acknowledging the potential relevance of budget analysis, the Court declined to apply it on this interim motion for reasons specific to the evidence before it.

First, the Respondent was cohabiting with a new partner whose income had not been disclosed. Although the Respondent properly advised that his housing costs had decreased, the absence of full financial information made a reliable household-to-household comparison difficult.

Second, the financial evidence showed a meaningful difference in post-separation savings. Since separation, the Respondent’s net savings had increased by approximately $21,000, while the Applicant’s had increased by approximately $7,000. When viewed over time, this disparity closely mirrored the difference between the SSAG “Mid” and “High” outcomes.

In light of these facts, the Court concluded that the income-based calculation produced the more reliable result on an interim basis.

The Result

Justice Breithaupt Smith ordered spousal support at the High end of the SSAG range, being $921 per month, commencing July 1, 2025. The Court made no costs order, noting that the motion raised an important analytical issue and that both counsel were well prepared.

Why This Decision Matters

Murphy v. Brennan does not establish a universal rule about how interim spousal support must be calculated. Rather, it demonstrates how one court weighed income levelling versus budget analysis on the record before it.

The decision underscores that:

• Budget analysis may be considered on an interim motion, but its usefulness depends heavily on the completeness and reliability of the evidence.

• Where children are involved, income-based SSAG calculations necessarily play a central role.

• Interim spousal support remains a provisional exercise, with more detailed financial scrutiny often left to trial.

For practitioners, Murphy is a reminder that the analytical framework can matter as much as the numbers themselves, and that the success of a budget-based argument on an interim motion will turn on the quality and completeness of the financial record.