Canada Case Law

Loehr v. Loehr

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court imputed the respondent's 2024 Guideline income at $195,309 and his 2025 income at $180,000 (three-year average), imputed the claimant's Guideline income at $70,000, declined to grant the respondent a retroactive variation to January 1, 2024 or to terminate spousal support as of November 1, 2024, ordered spousal support payable in the SSAG mid-range based on imputed incomes from July 1, 2025 until June 2029, ordered child support to reflect the imputed incomes and the claimant's full-time parenting from February 1, 2024, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

Source excerpt

• Income imputation
• Variation/review of support
• Retroactive support
• Spousal support duration
• Parenting time impact

Read case analysis

Johnston v. Wong

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Because respondent was sole shareholder/director of two companies, produced incomplete disclosure, and available corporate pre-tax income together with management remuneration and personal expenditures demonstrated funds available beyond reported personal income, the court imputed annual income of $372,522 to respondent for 2024-2025 (and applied same for relevant 2026 month), ordered retroactive child support to August 1, 2024 and ongoing monthly support of $4,271 commencing February 1, 2026.

Source excerpt

• Income imputation
• Child support retroactivity
• Corporate pre-tax income
• Disclosure obligations

Read case analysis

Glioza v. Ardalani

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal allowed in part because the trial judge misapprehended uncontested evidence that the appellant paid $43,149 of the child's private school fees from the Dempsey sale proceeds, warranting a reduction of the equalization payment by half that amount ($21,574.50); all other challenges failed because the judge's discretionary and factual findings (including admission of the jointly commissioned appraisal, refusal to account for speculative selling costs, income determinations and denial of spousal support) were supported by the record and not tainted by reviewable error.

Source excerpt

• Equalization payment
• Division of family property
• Income determination for support
• Expert appraisal admissibility
• Misapprehension of evidence
• Disclosure obligations

Read case analysis

Hansen v. Hansen

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On the evidence and given the respondent's incomplete financial disclosure, the court imputed a 2022 and 2023 non-taxable income of $138,901 (grossed up to $196,977) to the respondent for support purposes; the court declared primary residence periods for K1 and K2 (K1 with respondent from July 2022 onward; K2 with claimant until December 2023 and with respondent from January 2024 onward); ordered retroactive child support adjustments (respondent owes net $4,800.74 for July–December 2022 and the parties' 2023 support offset is $15,830.15, with parties to set off actual payments against these a…

Source excerpt

• Variation of separation agreement
• Setting aside contractual spousal support
• Income imputation
• Financial disclosure and adverse inferences
• Primary residence/parenting time
• Suspension of enforcement of support

Read case analysis

J.S.M. v. T.K.N.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Interim family-law reasons granting child and spousal support, imputing income to the claimant, ordering arrears, and limiting document production.

• Child support
• Spousal support
• Income imputation
• Interim orders
• Document production
• Retroactive support

Read case analysis

Edwards v. Edwards

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On the interim application the court imputed $30,000 of additional employment income to Ms. Edwards effective June 1, 2025, otherwise accepted her declared guideline income for the purposes of the application; declines to impute further income based on alleged access to Merom sale proceeds or parental advances on the present record; adjourns determination of retroactive spousal support from Jan 1, 2022 to trial for full evidentiary record; awards interim spousal support effective July 1, 2025; grants divorce; parties bear their own costs.

Source excerpt

• Spousal support
• Child support
• Income imputation
• Disclosure
• Retroactive support
• Variation of consent order

Read case analysis

Xu v. Yao

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court refused to make the interim awards retroactive to December 2023 and held the orders from the prior judgment are effective as of March 10, 2025, because the potential size of a retroactive lump sum, unresolved factual and income-imputation issues, the proximity of the scheduled trial (September 2026), and the state of the evidence weigh in favor of deferring retroactivity to the trial judge.

Source excerpt

• Retroactive support
• Income imputation
• Private school fees
• Commencement date of payments
• Prejudice and enforcement risks

Read case analysis

Shilo v. Vaisman

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On an interim basis, given deficient disclosure and unexplained spending of $250,721.88, the court applied the expense gross‑up method rather than a forensic corporate analysis or reliance on a single year holding company revenue; the respondent's guideline income was imputed to $429,856 per annum, the claimant's guideline income was fixed at $45,000 per annum, and interim spousal support of $4,530/month and child support of $5,085/month were ordered commencing March 1, 2026.

Source excerpt

• Income imputation
• Guideline income
• Corporate income method
• Expense gross-up method
• Shared parenting
• Spousal support advisory guidelines

Read case analysis

D.L.A. v. N.W.A.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

M.A. was found to remain a child of the marriage. The court partially included Mr. A’s LOA in income for 2023, ordered equal property division, and awarded indefinite spousal support.

• Living out allowance
• Income imputation
• Adult child support
• Retroactive support
• Rrsp withdrawal treatment
• Cpp equalization

Read case analysis

Crosby v. Crosby (Westhaver)

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The Court found a non‑temporary material change in circumstances caused by the applicant's 2023 employment termination and concluded the applicant is intentionally unemployed without reasonable excuse; exercising discretion and considering earning capacity, assets, needs and SSAG/tax effects, the Court imputed annual income of $400,000 to the applicant and reduced spousal support to $7,500 per month effective October 1, 2023; underpayments from Feb 1, 2022 to Sep 30, 2023 and overpayments since Oct 1, 2023 were identified and left for calculation between the parties.

Source excerpt

• Material change in circumstances
• Intentional unemployment
• Income imputation
• Ssag analysis
• Underpayment and overpayment of support
• Variation orders objectives

Read case analysis