“The quantum of income attributable to the husband is a finding of fact made by the trial judge on the basis of the evidence adduced by both parties. In Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, the Supreme Court of Canada has clearly told appellate courts not to interfere with a factual finding of a trial judge in the absence of palpable and overriding error, including a misapprehension of the evidence.
In my view, the trial judge made no such error and did not misapprehend the evidence. The trial judge was not obligated to accept either the husband’s evidence about his minimal income or the wife’s expert evidence as to the husband’s 1997 and projected income. The trial judge was entitled to attribute income based on his review of the whole of the evidence. On the evidence called at trial, he was entitled to his determination that neither party had persuaded him of a material change in the husband’s income since the divorce. There is no reason to interfere with his conclusion.”