What is the test for a motion to vary child support when the child support provision was imputed to the Respondent?

Ontario, Canada


The following excerpt is from Barichello v. Labute, 2016 ONCJ 546 (CanLII):

[30] The child support provision contained in the original order was based upon income imputed to the Respondent. In Trang v. Trang 2013 ONSC 1980, the court set out the principles to be considered on a request to vary support when the original order was based on imputed income as follows: 46 But if the original support order was based upon "imputed" income, a more comprehensive analysis is required on a motion to change. The court must consider: a. Why did income have to be imputed in the first instance? Have those circumstances changed? Is it still appropriate or necessary to impute income, to achieve a fair result? b. How exactly did the court quantify the imputed income? What were the calculations, and are they still applicable? … 50 In most variation proceedings, it should be possible to establish why (and how) income was imputed in the original order. Those factual findings and calculations are usually set out in affidavits or transcripts (in uncontested proceedings) and written endorsements or judgments (in contested proceedings). This is relevant information which should be presented to the court on a motion to change. It is essential to an understanding of what factors the court considered when the previous order was made — and whether those factors have changed. 51 When a court imputes income, that's a determination of a fact. It's not an estimate. It's not a guess. 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. 52 A party who argues that an imputed income level is no longer appropriate must go beyond establishing their subsequent "declared" income. They must address why income had to be imputed in the first place. They must present evidence of changed circumstances which establish that either: a. It is no longer necessary or appropriate to impute income. The payor's representations as to income should now be accepted, even if they weren't accepted before. Or, b. Even if income should still be imputed, changed circumstances suggest a different amount is more appropriate. 53 If "declared income" automatically prevailed on a motion to change support, it would defeat the purpose of imputing income in the first place. It might even be a disincentive for payors to participate in the initial court process. They could simply ignore support Applications — as they often do. They could wait to see if the court imputes income, and how much. If dissatisfied with the amount, the payor could later return to court waving their tax returns, to suggest that the original judge got it wrong. 54 Support claimants should not be forced to go through this two-step process. Our family court system certainly can't afford it. 55 Similarly, the onus should not fall on the support recipient to establish why income should still be imputed on a motion to change. That determination has already been made. The onus is on the support payor to establish that there should be a change in the way their income is to be calculated. 56 If for example the original support order imputed income because the court concluded an unemployed payor should have been working, it would be illogical to allow the payor to extinguish that determination by returning on a motion to change, with proof that he wasn't working. That wouldn't constitute a change in circumstances. 57 If a trial judge imputed income to a self-employed person on the basis that their tax return didn't reflect cash sales and excessive write-offs, there should be a presumption that so long as the payor maintains the same business activities and accounting practices, subsequent tax returns will be equally unreliable. 58 Imputed income matters. The reason why income had to be imputed matters. 59 If an aggrieved party feels income was wrongly imputed, they can take timely steps to correct the original determination. They can appeal. They can bring a motion to set aside the order based on mistake or misrepresentation. 60 But if a payor proceeds by way of motion to change, they must face the presumption that the original order was correct — and the original imputation of income was correct. If they want to rely on their declared income, they must establish why this time their representations should be accepted by the court.

Other Questions


Is it reasonable to impute income to the support payor for the purposes of child support and retroactive child support? (Ontario, Canada)
How would a respondent receive credit for child support paid for one child as a set off against a retroactive amount paid for the other child? (Ontario, Canada)
In what circumstances will a court grant a motion to terminate child support on the basis that the child is no longer a child of the marriage? (Ontario, Canada)
When a child lives away from home, does the court have to consider s. 3(2) of the Child Support Guidelines to reduce child support? (Ontario, Canada)
Can a percentage of the "hard costs" associated with child support be deducted from rental income for the purpose of calculating child support? (Ontario, Canada)
How has the court interpreted section 19(1)(a) of the Child Support Guidelines and interpreted the meaning of the word "intentionally" in relation to child support? (Ontario, Canada)
In what circumstances will the court award retroactive child support to a plaintiff who was not paying child support at the time of separation? (Ontario, Canada)
When the husband understated his income for child support purposes, the wife was receiving social assistance. In what circumstances will he be entitled to table child support? (Ontario, Canada)
Can a husband unilaterally terminate his obligation to pay child support by unilaterally terminating the child's support? (Ontario, Canada)
Is a motion for retroactive child and spousal support a matter of enforcement rather than retroactive support? (Ontario, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.