“Imputing income is one method by which the court gives effect to the joint and ongoing obligation of parents to support their children. See: Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 CanLII 41868 (ON CA), [2002] O.J. No. 3731 (Ont. C.A.).
The Ontario Court of Appeal in Drygala, set out the following three questions that should be answered by a court in considering a request to impute income:
1.Is the party intentionally under-employed or unemployed?
2.If so, is the intentional under-employment or unemployment required by virtue of his reasonable educational needs?
3.If not, what income is appropriately imputed?
In answering the first question in Drygala, 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) (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 (Ont. C.A.), at paragraph 23. It must be reasoned, thoughtful and highly practical: See: Hagner v. Hawkins 2005 CanLII 43294 (Ont. S.C.J.), at paragraph 19.”