“A person making a decision to start a business in which he or she has no experience may result in a finding that he or she is intentionally underemployed: See: Dang v. Hornby, 2006 CanLII 12973 (ON SC), 2006 Canlii 12973 (OSC); Ruszczak v. Scherbluck, 2012 ONCJ 14 (CanLII); Charron v. Carriere, 2016 ONSC 4719 (CanLII). Where a party chooses to pursue self-employment, the court will examine whether this is a reasonable choice in the circumstances: Smith v. Smith, 2012 ONSC 1116 (CanLII).
Once a party seeking the imputation of income presents the evidentiary basis suggesting a prima facie case, the onus shifts to the individual seeking to defend the income position they are taking. See: Lo v. Lo, 2011 ONSC 7663 (CanLII); Charron v. Carriere, 2016 ONSC 4719 (CanLII).
When an employment decision results in a significant reduction of child support, it needs to be justified in a compelling way: See: Riel v. Holland, 2003 CanLII 3433 (ON CA), 2003 CanLII 3433 (Ont. C.A.), at paragraph 23. As a general rule, separated parents have an obligation to financially support their children and they cannot avoid that obligation by a self-induced reduction of income. See: Thompson v. Gilchrist, 2012 ONSC 4137 (Canlii); DePace v. Michienzi, 2000 CanLII 22560 (ON SC), [2000] O.J. No. 453, (Ont. Fam. Ct.); Drygala, supra, paragraph 39.”