Search by Category
- F - Bankruptcy 1
- F - Certificates of Pending Litigation 1
- F - Child Support 31
- F - Common Law 3
- F - Corporate Income 2
- F - Divorce 7
- F - Domestic Contract 7
- F - Domestic Violence 3
- F - Emergency Relief 1
- F - Equalization 4
- F - Equitable Remedy 1
- F - Exclusive Possession 2
- F - Family Responsibility Office 2
- F - Final Order 1
- F - Imputing Income 11
- F - Jurisdiction 1
- F - Limitation Periods 1
- F - Matrimonial Home 17
- F - Net Family Property 31
- F - Occupational Rent 4
- F - Pension 2
- F - Preservation 1
- F - Property 47
- F - Restraining 1
- F - Resulting Trust 3
- F - Retroactive Support 5
- F - Section 7 Expenses 7
- F - Spousal Support 27
- F - Standard Procedure 1
- F - Trust 1
- F-Certificate of Pending Litigation 1
- F-Decision-Making 6
- F-Exclusions 2
- F-Mobility 11
- F-OCL 1
- F-Parenting 37
- F-Parenting Time 11
- F-Preservation Orders 2
- F-Relocation 12
- F-Travel 2
- F-unjust enrichment 7
- Frequently Cited Cases 14
- Post-Separation Increases 1
Family Law Principles that we can learn from Thompson v. Thompson 2013 ONSC 5500 (Imputing Income)
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.
Thompson v. Thompson 2013 ONSC 5500
The blog post provides a detailed examination of the court case Thompson v. Thompson 2013 ONSC 5500, which involved issues of divorce, child support, and spousal support. It explores various aspects such as the grounds for divorce, retroactive support claims, residential situation of the child, and assessment of parties' incomes.
This case also looks at: Imputing pre-tax corporate income, intentional un/under-employment