What is the test for imputing income on behalf of a party who is an "intentionally" under-employed?

[114] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Drygala v. Pauli set out the following three questions which should be answered by a court in considering a request to impute income: 1. Is the party intentionally under-employed or unemployed? 2. If so, is the intentional under-employment or unemployment required by virtue of the party’s or the child’s reasonable education or health needs? 3. If not, what income is appropriately imputed?