“A decision to pursue self-employment where a payor earns no income, is not a reasonable choice. A parent will not be excused from his or her child support obligations in furtherance of unrealistic or unproductive career aspirations or interests. Nor will it be acceptable for a parent to choose to work for future rewards to the detriment of the present needs of his or her children.: Norris v. Riley, 2023 ONCH 121 (CanLII), at para. 95 (g) and 98(c).
However, income cannot be imputed to a party without there being sufficient evidence to ground an income to impute. The party attempting to impute income must provide a breakdown of how the figure being sought to impute was calculated. While the imputation of income is not an exact science, the amount to be imputed as to reference real evidence: Albanez v. Samuda, 2019 ONSC 3610.
The onus is on Fiona, since she is seeking the imputation, to “establish an evidentiary foundation for the intentional unemployment or under-employment: employment”: McNeil v. Dunne, 2019 CarswellOnt 6388 (S.C.J.), para. 50. The spouse need only show a prima facie case: McNeil v. Dunne, supra, para. 72. Once established, the burden shifts to the other party “to satisfy the court as to their income level and that income should not be imputed”: A.E v. A.E., 2021 CarswellOnt 18880 (S.C.J.), para. 258. In other words, “the onus shifts to the individual seeking to defend the income position they are taking”: McNeil v. Dunne, supra, para. 72.”