Simon's Legal Resources

Family - Orders - Interim Orders

. Curd v. Pare [interim orders]

In Curd v. Pare (Div Ct, 2026) the Divisional Court dismissed an appeal, this brought against the dismissal of the appellant's "claim for dependent support under s. 58(1) [SS: 'Order for support'] of the Succession Law Reform Act".

The court considers 'interim orders', here in this family law-estates context:

Treatment of Interim Order:

[69] An interim motion was heard on September 6, 2023, which resulted in an interim order for support. The appellant submits that the judge failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the motion judge’s findings.

[70] A trial judge is not bound by interim orders. It would be overly cumbersome to expect or require a trial judge to go back over interim orders (and in some cases, there are many), to explain why they have decided differently than the motion judge. Motions are largely determined on written and untested evidence, not subject to cross-examination (although questioning/discovery may have taken place). Interim orders are meant as a holding place until a trial can be heard and a decision made on a full record. To suggest that a trial judge is bound by a support order made on a motion is to misunderstand the purpose of a motion and the purpose of a trial.