The majority in Hunt v. Smolis‑Hunt (2001), 2001 ABCA 229 (CanLII), 286 A.R. 248 (C.A.) held that s.19(1)(a) of the Guidelines should be interpreted as permitting a court to impute income where the payor has pursued a deliberate course of conduct for the purpose of evading child support obligations. This requires either proof of a specific intention to undermine or avoid support obligations, or circumstances which permit the court to infer that the intention of the payor is to undermine or avoid his or her support obligations, such as where the unemployment, under‑employment or other acts of the payor indicate a deliberate refusal to live up to the obligation to support one's children.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.