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
Drygala v. Pauli 2002 CanLII 41868 (ONCA)
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.