“It is well established that the absence of disclosure is a cancer on the process. A recipient should not be required to reconstruct a payor’s financial affairs. Non-disclosure may result in the loss of standing in the proceeding: Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24, at paras. 4, 50 and 51; Leitch v. Novac, 2020 ONCA 257, 150 O.R. (3d) 587, at para. 44; Di Sabatino v. Di Sabatino, at paras. 45-47; Manchanda v. Thethi, 2016 ONCA 909, at para. 13.
Where income reported on a party’s Income Tax Return does not fairly, completely or credibly reflect the money that is available to the party, it is open to the court to impute income: Di Sabatino v. Di Sabatino, at para 48.
The test for imputing income for child support purposes applies equally for spousal support purposes: Christodoulou v. Christodoulou, 2021 ONSC 6538, at para. 27; Di Sabatino v. Di Sabatino, at para. 49.
Evidence of a lavish lifestyle provides a basis upon which inferences about a party’s access to undisclosed income may be drawn: Bak v. Dobell, 2007 ONCA 204, 86 O.R. (3d) 196; Di Sabatino v. Di Sabatino, at para. 49.
In instances where a party has intentionally withheld disclosure or has provided less than candid and/or complete disclosure, the court may, in imputing income, draw an adverse inference against that party: see Meade v. Meade (2002), 2002 CanLII 2806 (ON SC), 31 R.F.L. (5th) 88, at para. 81 and see also s. 23 of the Child Support Guidelines. The policy rationale behind this rule is that a party should not be allowed to benefit from the deficient record they have created or caused by their failure to comply with disclosure obligations: Di Sabatino v. Di Sabatino, at para. 51.