What is the test for imputing income to a payor who is intentionally underemployed?

In Smith v. Smith,[2] Justice Chappel set out a list of factors for determining whether to impute income. The following factors are relevant: • it is not necessary to establish bad faith or an attempt to thwart support obligations before imputing income. A payor is intentionally underemployed if they earn less than they are capable of earning having regard for all of the circumstances. In determining whether to impute income on that basis, the court must consider what is reasonable in the circumstances. The factors that the court should consider include the age, education, experience, skills and health of the party, the party's past earning history and the amount of income that the party could reasonably earn if they worked to capacity; • there is a duty on the part of the payor to actively seek out reasonable employment opportunities that will maximize their income potential so as to meet the needs of their dependants; • the court will not excuse a party from their support obligations or reduce these obligations where the party has persisted in un-remunerative employment, or where they have pursued unrealistic or unproductive career aspirations. A self-induced reduction of income is not a basis upon which to avoid or reduce support payments; • where a party fails to provide full financial disclosure relating to their income, the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference and to impute income to them; • the amount of income that the court imputes is a matter of discretion, however, there must be some basis on the evidence for the amount the court has chosen to impute.