In the Drygala v. Pauli case, the court made a significant decision regarding the imputation of income. Despite Mr. Pauli being a full-time university student with no full-time employment, the court imputed an annual income of $30,000 to him. The court arrived at this decision based on the belief that Mr. Pauli, given his skills and qualifications, was capable of working part-time while attending school. This decision underscored the principle that child support obligations cannot be circumvented through intentional unemployment or underemployment, even if the parent is pursuing education.

The DiFrancesco v. Couto case serves as a compelling example of the court's adaptability in adjusting child support payments based on changing circumstances. While the court always prioritizes the needs of the child, it also takes into account the paying parent's ability to meet these obligations. This case emphasizes that child support is not a fixed amount set in stone. Instead, it can be adjusted to reflect the present realities of the parents' financial situation. The court's willingness to consider the future capacity to pay, even in the face of present incapacity, underscores its commitment to ensuring a fair and equitable approach to child support payments.

Lavie v. Lavie, 2018 ONCA 10 illustrates the complexity of determining child support. It is a decision that requires a delicate balance between the parents' financial abilities and the children's needs. Particularly in cases where parents' incomes fluctuate or change over time, the court must revisit and adjust child support obligations to ensure that they continue to serve the best interests of the children.

The court's decision to adopt this detailed approach reflects a commitment to ensuring a fair and equitable resolution that takes into account the unique circumstances presented in this case. It underscores the importance of a nuanced understanding of the individual's condition, means, needs, and other circumstances in determining support payments, particularly in cases involving recipients of disability support. This is a clear departure from a one-size-fits-all approach, paving the way for a more personalized resolution that better aligns with the realities of the parties involved.

The blog is about the 2007 Ontario Court of Appeal case, Bak v. Dobell. The case revolves around complex issues related to child support and the definition of income. The main subject of the case, the respondent, is a financially supported individual whose father provides for him in numerous ways. This includes providing a place to live in, first in a condominium and later in a Stouffville property, and covering various expenses such as medical, psychological, chiropractic, legal, and veterinary bills.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has provided clarification regarding imputing income in cases of intentional underemployment or unemployment. In accordance with section 19(1)(a) of the Guidelines, it has been established that it's not essential to prove bad faith or an attempt to evade support obligations to impute income. A parent can be deemed intentionally underemployed if they earn less than they are capable of earning, given all of the relevant circumstances.

The complexity of divorce court proceedings often extends beyond the immediate concerns of child custody and spousal support. This complexity is amplified in cases where financial disputes arise, particularly when one or both parties involved are shareholders, directors, or officers in a corporation. A case that perfectly illustrates this intricate scenario is the Thompson v. Thompson case. This case provides an in-depth and detailed examination of how the attribution of corporate pre-tax income is handled in such situations, offering valuable insights into the legal nuances involved.

In the context of child and spousal support proceedings, the determination of the parties' incomes is crucial. The Guidelines' sections 15 to 20 are the starting point for calculating a party's income. If both spouses agree in writing on the annual income of a spouse, the court may consider that amount to be the spouse's income. The spouse's annual income is determined using the sources of income set out in the T1 General Form issued by the Canada Revenue Agency, with adjustments provided for in Schedule III to the Guidelines. The court should determine the party's Guidelines income for the upcoming twelve months from when child support will be paid if a party's prior year's income is not predictive of what they are likely to earn in the upcoming year.

In cases of child or spousal support predating the start of proceedings, a party must specifically include a claim for retroactive relief in their pleading. This conclusion is based on considerations of certainty, fairness to the payor, and administration of justice. Allowing retroactive claims without specific pleading disrupts the balance between certainty and flexibility, undermines procedural fairness, and creates administrative challenges. The standard form Family Law Application should be amended to include separate headings for retroactive child and spousal support claims. If a litigant fails to plead for retroactive support, they should seek consent to amend their pleading early in the proceeding or request leave to amend before trial.

The Thompson v. Thompson case provides a clear exposition of the principles for imputing income, as outlined in Section 19 of Canada's Child Support Guidelines. According to these guidelines, the court may impute income to a spouse based on factors such as intentional under-employment or unemployment, income diversion, unreasonable expense deductions, and more. Essentially, it provides the court with the discretion to ensure a fair child or spousal support outcome based on the spouse's potential earning capability rather than their declared income.

Thus, some general principles guide and inform the court’s exercise of discretion on this issue. A spouse is not automatically entitled to increased spousal support when the other spouse’s post–separation income increases. The right to share in post-separation income increases typically does not arise in non-compensatory claims. However, compensatory support claims may provide a foundation for entitlement to share in post-separation income increases in certain circumstances.

In the case of Kerr v. Baranow, the Supreme Court of Canada addressed the issue of retroactive spousal support, emphasizing the nuances that distinguish it from child support. The term "retroactive" in this context refers to a claim for support for periods predating the commencement of legal proceedings. The court referred to the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, which established that the initiation of court proceedings for spousal support usually determines the commencement date for the support order, barring any specific reasons for a different date.

These claims pertain to support for periods predating the commencement date of the legal pleading in which support is claimed or from the date the legal pleading was commenced to the date that the payor started paying child support. The court expounded upon the Supreme Court of Canada's position on these matters, as laid out in the case D.B.S. v. S.R.G.; L.J.W. v. T.A.R; Henry v. Henry; Hiemstra v. Hiemstra..

The SSAG were developed around two basic formulas, namely the Without Child Support formula, which applies when the recipient spouse is not receiving any child support, and the With Child Support formula, which comes into play when there are dependent children of the relationship who are eligible for child support.