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

Ontario, Canada


The following excerpt is from Harry v. Moore, 2021 ONCJ 341 (CanLII):

[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?

Other Questions


What is the test for imputing income on behalf of a spouse who is an under-employed spouse? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for imputing income from a spouse who is intentionally under-employed? (Manitoba, Canada)
What is the test for imputing income on behalf of a child of an under-employed father? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for imputing income to a spouse intentionally under-employed or unemployed? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for imputing income to a spouse who is intentionally under-employed? (Ontario, Canada)
Is a party intentionally underemployed or unemployed intentionally imputing income under section 19(1)(a) of the Employment Guidelines? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for imputing income from a spouse when they are under-employed? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for imputing income from a spouse who is under-employed? (Ontario, Canada)
Is a payor intentionally under-employed if the payor chooses not to work when he is capable of earning income? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether an intentionally under-employed person intentionally intentionally seeks to avoid paying child support? (Nova Scotia, Canada)