Is imputing income to a recipient on an interim motion?

Very recently, in Rankin v. Rankin, 2021 ONSC 4537, Kiteley J. noted this distinction, between imputing income to a child support payor versus a spousal support recipient. The case before Kiteley J. also concerned whether it is appropriate to impute an income to a recipient on an interim motion.

In Rankin v. Rankin, the parties had separated after a lengthy marriage. The wife was self-employed as a cello teacher, earning nominal income. The parties were each in their 50s at the time of separation. The husband earned significant income.

Kiteley J. declined to impute an income to the recipient. At ¶ 53-54, she noted that many of the decisions that had been supplied to her were trial decisions, or decisions where income had been imputed to a support payor. She then said, “[o]n a motion for temporary support the task of imputing income to the support recipient requires an in-depth analysis as to ability to earn more professional income or in investment income. It is contrary to the expectations on a motion for temporary support for the court to undertake that analysis.” In this regard, her reasoning also aligns with ¶ 14(3.) of Politis v. Politis.

Kraft J. reached a similar conclusion in Lidell-MacInnis v. MacInnis, 2021 ONSC 1787. Once again in that case, the husband argued that income should be imputed to the recipient wife in response to a spousal support claim. The facts were that the parties had three children, ranging in age between 17 and 22. The wife who was 49, only had a high schedule education and a legal assistant diploma, obtained many years ago. She had been out of the workforce for 17 years. During the marriage, the wife taught some dancing courses, but earned nominal income. She had been the primary caregiver for the parties’ children. By contrast, the husband was a chartered accountant and a partner at a large accounting firm. He was the primary income earner for the family. See ¶ 8 -10.