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.

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 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.

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.