“In Zigris v. Foustanellas, 2016 ONSC 7528 (CanLII) at 34-38, Shelston J. summarized the general principles applicable to each step of the income imputation analysis as follows:
Step one
[34] When considering the spouse’s capacity to earn income, the court should consider, among others, the following principles:
(a) There is a duty on the spouse to “actively seek out reasonable employment opportunities that will maximize their income potential so as to meet the needs of their children” (Thompson v. Thompson, 2014 ONSC 5500, at para. 99);
(b) A spouse’s capacity to earn income can be influenced by his or her age, education, health, work history, and the availability of work that is within the scope of his or her capabilities (Marquez v. Zaipola, 2013 BCCA 433 (CanLII), 344 B.C.A.C. 133, at para. 37);
Step two
[35] The second step of the Drygala test is generally treated as an overall test of reasonableness. In Jackson v. Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 72 (CanLII), at para. 702, the court held that:
Once intentional underemployment is established, the onus shifts to how one of the exceptions of reasonableness.
[36] Justice Pazaratz notes in Jackson v. Mayerle, at para. 715:
Parents are required to act responsibly when making financial decisions that may affect the level of child support available. They must not arrange their financial affairs so as to prefer their own interests over those of their children.
Step three
[37] Where the spouse is intentionally and unreasonably under-employed or unemployed, the court has a large range of discretion to impute as income an amount founded on a rational basis, as detailed in the Court of Appeal case of D.D. v. H.D., 2015 ONCA 409 (CanLII), 335 O.A.C. 376.
[38] The main factors a court should consider are the age, education, skills, and health of the spouse, along with the number of hours that can be worked in light of competing obligations and the hourly rate the spouse could reasonably obtain (Drygala, at para. 45).