(289) 892-4281
When it comes to figuring out child or spousal support in family law, one issue that comes up often – drum roll please – is “income imputation.” That’s just a fancy way of saying, “Hey, what do we do when the payor conveniently forgets to give full financial disclosure?”
This question was the center stage in two recent Ontario cases- Osanebi v. Osanebi and de Pimentel v. Rodriguez—where judges flexed their creative muscles to calculate fair support despite some pretty uncooperative payors. Let’s break it down:
The Case of Osanebi v. Osanebi
In Osanebi, the couple separated after six years of marriage, with the father moving to Nigeria and providing limited support to the mother, who remained in Ontario with their two children. The mother wanted child support to be based on a minimum wage income of $32,100, and yep you guessed it, the father ghosted and did not defend himself in court. So, the matter proceeded without him.
Justice Akazaki did something surprising. Sidenote: when you’re a lawyer, very few things surprise you. One of the few things is a decision made in court that is not what you either want or expect. Anyways, back to the case. Although the mother requested support based on minimum wage, Justice Akazaki imputed a higher income for the father based on Canada’s median wage of approximately $30 per hour, or about $50,000 annually. This decision resulted in a support payment of $755 per month instead of the $491 per month the mother initially requested. **insert shocked emoji here**. Even if you’re not shocked, just pretend.
So basically, Justice Akazaki questioned the standard practice of using a minimum wage to estimate income when a payor doesn’t disclose their earnings, reasoning that the median income might be a fairer reflection of earning capacity for someone who could be hiding their true income. I mean, let’s be honest for the person seeking support: this is great stuff. The court suggested that relying on minimum wage may unintentionally penalize the parents, who are often left with the primary responsibility for raising the children. Woohoo!
de Pimentel v. Rodriguez: A Different Take on Evidence and Imputation
The second case, de Pimentel v. Rodriguez, also involved a support payor who left Ontario and failed to disclose his full financial situation. The mother, aware of the father’s training as an electrician, argued that he likely earned more than he reported. She tried to support her claim by referencing job postings that showed average salaries for electrical engineers in Toronto, estimating that he could be making around $90,000 annually.
However, Justice Myers, the judge in this case, took a more conservative approach. He declined to base his decision on job postings, as they were not a reliable form of evidence about the father’s actual income or skill level. Myers highlighted that an income imputation should be grounded in evidence directly related to the individual’s circumstances—such as their work history, qualifications, and specific skills—not assumptions or general statistics. He ultimately imputed the father’s income at $50,000, reflecting the last income level the father had reportedly earned.
Key Takeaways for Imputation in Family Law
Let’s dive into a common question: Which approach is right when imputing income for a payor who conveniently “forgets” to disclose their earnings?
The usual go-to for courts is starting with minimum wage and working up from there. But in one case, the court decided to shake things up by leaning on statistics because, you know, statistics are always 100% accurate and totally represent every single person on Earth, right? (Spoiler: They don’t. But hey, they sure sound fancy in court!)
Anyway, let’s not get distracted. Whether you’re the one paying or receiving support, here’s what you should know about income imputation:
1. Disclosure is Your Friend (Seriously, Just Do It)
Want to avoid the whole imputation headache? Be upfront with your financials. Provide accurate, complete disclosure, and save yourself the stress. Yes, it might sting a little to show those pay stubs, but it’s a lot easier than ending up with an income you don’t actually earn. Transparency for the win.
2. Judges Can Go Either Way
As we’ve seen, income imputation isn’t an exact science. Some judges stick with the “minimum wage starting point.” Others might pull a Justice Akazaki and decide that median income stats should be the benchmark. Which approach is “right”? Well, that depends on who you ask—and which judge you get. If you’re the payor, you’ll probably root for minimum wage. If you’re the recipient, median income sounds pretty sweet. Bottom line? Be prepared for either.
3. Evidence Rules (So Bring the Receipts)
In our second case, the mom tried to argue for a higher imputed income based on job postings and salary averages. But here’s the kicker:
The court called her evidence “hearsay,” which isn’t allowed.
Even if it were allowed, there was no proof the father qualified for those roles—he was an electrician, not an electrical engineer.
The moral of the story? Don’t wing it. If you’re pushing for income to be imputed, come armed with solid, relevant evidence. Job ads and random averages won’t cut it. Show the court something tangible and credible to back up your claims.
There’s plenty more we could unpack from these cases, but we’ll leave you with this: transparency and preparation are your best allies. And if all else fails, don’t worry—we’re here to help you navigate the maze of family law. Need advice? Call our family law experts at 905-492-7662! Let’s make it easier for you.
