“Imputing income is one method by which the court gives effect to the joint and ongoing obligation of parents to support their children. In order to meet this obligation, the parties must earn what they are capable of earning. If they fail to do so, they will be found to beintentionally under-employed or unemployed. Clause 19(1)(a) of the guidelines is perceived as being a test of reasonableness. See Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 CanLII 41868 (ON CA), 2002 CanLII 41868, 61 O.R. (3d) 711, 164 O.A.C. 241, 219 D.L.R. (4th) 319, 29 R.F.L. (5th) 293, [2002] O.J. No. 3731, 2002 CarswellOnt 3228 (Ont. C.A.).
The court in Drygala v. Paulisets out a three-part test to determine whether income should be imputed. The first part of the test is to ask whether the payor is intentionally under-employed or unemployed. The court stated that there is no need to find a specific intent to evade child support obligations before income is imputed; the payor is intentionally under-employed if he or she chooses to earn less than they are capable of earning. The court must look at whether the act is voluntary and reasonable.
The onus is on the applicant to establish that the respondent is intentionally unemployed or under-employed. The person requesting an imputation of income must establish an evidentiary basis upon which this finding can be made. See Homsi v. Zaya, 2009 ONCA 322 (CanLII), 248 O.A.C. 168, 65 R.F.L. (6th) 17, [2009] O.J. No. 1552, 2009 CarswellOnt 2068 (Ont. C.A.). However, persistence in unremunerative employment may entitle the court to impute income. A parent cannot be excused from his or her child support obligations in furtherance of unrealistic or unproductive career aspirations. As a general rule, a parent cannot avoid child support obligations by a self-induced reduction of income. See DePace v. Michienzi, 2000 CanLII 22560 (ON SC), 2000 CanLII 22560, 5 R.F.L. (5th) 40, [2000] O.J. No. 453, 2000 CarswellOnt 425 (Ont. Fam. Ct.).”