Canada Case Law

Young v. Young

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Where the judge found the payor intentionally underemployed by relocating to Ecuador and restricting his earnings, it was proper to impute income based on what he could reasonably earn in Canada (assessed between $60,000–$80,000) and to impute $70,000; fresh evidence was excluded because it could have been obtained with due diligence and would not have altered the result.

Source excerpt

• Imputation of income
• Underemployment
• Variation of support order
• Fresh evidence on appeal
• Procedural fairness

Read case analysis

Marsh v. Patterson

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court granted a child support variation in part, found the respondent was not intentionally underemployed on an interim basis, and imputed income at $65,000 for 2023.

• Variation of child support
• Underemployment
• Interim relief
• Production order
• Disclosure
• Child-support

Read case analysis

Sheridan v. Woodill

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court found the respondent had deliberately underemployed and failed to pay substantial child support arrears and a $6,000 costs award, thereby abusing court processes; on that basis and applying CPR 88 and CPR 45 the court granted a conditional stay requiring payment of the outstanding $6,000 before the variation application may proceed, ordered security for costs of $1,000 to be paid into court before the application proceeds, and awarded the applicant costs of $750 for the motion.

Source excerpt

• Conditional stay
• Security for costs
• Costs awards
• Abuse of process
• Underemployment

Read case analysis

A.J.B.B. v. B.B.M.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court imputed the respondent’s income at $112,000, ordered child support and conditional spousal support, denied security, and awarded costs to the claimant.

• Imputation of income
• Underemployment
• Child support table
• Spousal support advisory guidelines
• Security for support
• Costs

Read case analysis

Day v. Day

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court refused to vary the arrears because the applicant produced no evidence that the 2019 imputation of $35,000 was inappropriate and there was no material change in circumstances warranting reduction of the arrears; current facts did not undermine the original factual finding of intentional underemployment and unreasonable job search.

Source excerpt

• Imputed income
• Retroactive variation
• Arrears
• Underemployment
• Garnishee

Read case analysis

Diamond v. Berman

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's factual findings were well anchored in the evidence and not palpably and overridingly erroneous; reliance on expert evidence justified refusing to impute higher income; the high-end spousal support award was supported by findings of disproportionate economic impact; and the costs award was within the trial judge's discretion and adequately reviewed and reduced.

Source excerpt

• Imputation of income
• Spousal support advisory guidelines
• Underemployment
• Costs - full recovery

Read case analysis

D.G v. J.G.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Income was imputed to the respondent at $23,218 because his voluntary reduction in employment was unreasonable and not due to health or child needs; child support was set at the table amount of $329/month from May 1, 2019 and $50/month directed to arrears; retrospective s.7 orthodontic contribution was denied due to delay, the 2018 comprehensive settlement context and resulting hardship to the respondent while future s.7 dental expenses are to be shared proportionate to incomes upon proof.

Source excerpt

• Imputation of income
• Underemployment
• Retroactive child support
• Section 7 expenses (orthodontics)
• Administrative recalculation
• Arrears repayment

Read case analysis

Cosentino v. Cosentino

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion judge properly concluded there was no material change warranting variation because the medical evidence either predated the trial or was withheld as part of trial strategy and the appellant intentionally reduced his income (underemployment) to avoid support; the Court of Appeal upheld those findings and dismissed the appeal.

Source excerpt

• Variation
• Change of circumstances
• Underemployment
• Costs

Read case analysis

Standing v. MacInnis

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Income of $80,000 per annum was imputed to Mr. Standing effective January 1, 2020 because his reduction in earnings was self‑induced (he quit a lucrative job without securing comparable employment), he failed to prove s.19(1)(a) excuses (child needs, education or health), and his historical earnings demonstrated capacity to earn substantially more, therefore child and spousal support and enforcement measures were ordered based on the imputed income.

Source excerpt

• Imputed income
• Underemployment
• Garnishment
• Section 7 expenses
• Variation of support
• Arrears repayment

Read case analysis

Leitch v. Leitch

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed an application to cancel or vary child and spousal support arrears, finding no material change in circumstances and no basis to reduce arrears.

• Variation of support orders
• Cancellation/reduction of arrears
• Imputed income
• Underemployment
• Fmep enforcement
• Hearsay/admissibility of online evidence

Read case analysis