Is imputation of income a determination of fact?

As Pazaratz J. held at ¶ 51 of Trang v. Trang, the imputation of income is a determination of fact. “It’s not a provisional order awaiting better disclosure, or further review. It’s a determination that the court had to calculate a number, because it didn’t feel it was appropriate to rely on – or wait for – representations from the payor.”

A payor who argues that imputed income is no longer appropriate must go beyond his or her “declared income”. He or she must address both why income had to be imputed in the first place and establish that it is either no longer appropriate to impute income as representations as to income should now be accepted; or if income should still be imputed now, it should be done at a different amount: see ¶ 52 of Trang v. Trang.

The onus falls on the payor, not the recipient, to establish that there should be a change in the way his income is to be calculated: see ¶ 55 of Trang v. Trang.