“The legal considerations in relation to health issues and imputing income include the following:
a. There is a duty to seek employment in a case where a parent is healthy. Drygala; S.M.R. v. E.L.M.2019 BCPC 236 (BC PC); Anyumba v. Keby 2018 ONCJ 775 (OCJ).
b. A health issue or limitation may constitute a reasonable explanation for unemployment or under-employment. But the onus is on the person advancing such an explanation to provide evidence both as to the nature and magnitude of the health problem; and also the connection between the health issue and the person’s employability or capacity to earn an income.
c. Cogent medical evidence in the form of detailed medical opinion should be provided by the payor in order to satisfy the court that his/her reasonable health needs justify his/her decision not to work. Cook v. Burton2005 CanLII 1063 (SCJ); Stoangi v. Petersen 2006 CanLII 24124 (SCJ).
d. The payor must prove that any medical excuse for being underemployed is reasonable. Rilli v. Rilli2006 CanLII 34451 (SCJ); Matti v. Odish 2017 ONCJ 410 (OCJ); Pecanac v. Mamado 2017 CarswellOnt 5103 (OCJ); McIntyre v. Garcia.
e. Support payors must use reasonable efforts to address whatever medical limitations they may have to earn income. This means following up on medical recommendations to address those limitations. C.V. v. S.G. 2019 ONCJ 159(OCJ); Cole v. Freiwald [2011] O.J. No. 3654 (OCJ).
f. The receipt of ODSP or Workplace Safety and Insurance Board benefits is not sufficient proof of one’s inability to work for support purposes. Tyrrell v. Tyrrell2017 ONSC 6499 (SCJ). The court cannot take judicial notice of any eligibility requirements for ODSP. Nor can it delegate the important and complex determinations of employability and income earning capacity to unknown bureaucrats applying unknown evidence to unknown criteria.”