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.

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 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