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.