Superior Court Penalties
Aug 2006
Imputed income refers to an income assigned by the court. Income is primarily assigned by the court because a party has failed to disclose related financial documents, or has falsified submissions, or has purposefully become unemployed, or underutilized the earning potential of their assets. Ascertaining income levels is most important with regards to child support for purposes of using the Child Support Guidelines. Sometimes imputation is not required for spousal support as it can alternately be based on the needs of the recipient, as long as the payor is deemed to at least have the ability to pay.
The imputation of income can be highly problematic if it is imputed too low for a recipients needs, or too high for a payors means. Estimations can be a major source of error and may require additional expensive court hearings to rectify. If income is imputed too high a payor may wind up defaulting and be subject to further penalties. The court may refuse to vary because the payor has not complied with the court order. And the payor may not be left with sufficient income to meet their own needs
Cases where the payor has been deemed to be evading working to pay their support obligations are classified as intentionally unemployed, and receive further analysis in the next section. Consent agreements were not included or mutual imputations where disagreement is not a significant factor in the case. In this study mild imputations have been defined as where a parties income is imputed 5 K or less than they have declared, or where a party receives net support. Severe imputations are where a party has been imputed at 20 K or more above income claimed. A summary of these cases and their outcomes can be found in Appendix E.
For family cases where imputation of income was an issue the data is as follows
|
Party |
Number of cases |
Mild |
Moderate |
Severe |
|
Male |
106 |
6 |
39 |
61 |
|
Female |
28 |
24 |
4 |
0 |
Summarized in percentage terms
|
Party |
Number of cases |
Mild |
Moderate |
Severe |
|
Male |
100 |
5.6 |
36.9 |
61.0 |
|
Female |
100 |
85.7 |
14.3 |
0.0 |
% Men Imputed = 106 / 134 x 100 = 79.1 %
% Women Imputed = 28 / 134 x 100 = 20.9 %
Conclusions
It must be noted that 24 out of 28 women imputed received mild imputations which do not qualify as significant penalties. Also 6 out of 106 men received a mild imputation, so after these cases are removed real penalties imposed are as follows
% Men Imputed = 100 / 104 x 100 = 96.0 %
% Women Imputed = 4 / 104 x 100 = 4.0 %
Imputed income was the largest of the penalty categories and had to be segregated to assess actual penalization. Though men were only penalized 5 to 1 overall in this category, when only significant imputations are considered the real rate was 26 to 1. When a woman is imputed there is an 85.7 % chance it is a minor imputation which only adjusts support received, and a 0 % chance it is a severe imputation resulting in a major cash outflow. When a man is imputed there is a 5.6 % chance it is a minor imputation, but a 61 % chance it is a severe imputation where yearly income is adjusted in excess of 20 K above what was claimed, resulting in a major cash outflow. The consequences of imputation can be quite severe. E#ven minor payments may be impossible for some one who is unemployed. Welfare or other social service benefits may be unavailable as they are based on total income, not the potion retained. If imputation is based on assets such as a house those assets may have to be sold to provide a greater return resulting in a change of lifestyle. Retraining for a new career may be denied. Working overtime may become enshrined in the support regime. Lower levels of periodic work may result in reduced income without a reduction in support. Losses of capital from depreciations in investments may have to be made up for. The most severe penalties would be overimputation leaving the payor with little or nothing to survive. On default further penalties such as garnishment, seizure and / or imprisonment may be imposed.
Appendix E — Ontario Imputed Income Cases Sudied
|
|
|
Sex..of party |
Outcome |
|
1 |
Praill v. Praill, 2004 CanLII 5074 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Double recovery of undervalued portion of mans pension allowed but support reduced from 1.2 K per month to $ 850 |
|
2 |
Scott v. Scott, 2003 CanLII 2234 (ON S.C.) |
w |
Woman imputed at full income of 36 K after quitting her job for 6 months, then at half income for 6 months, then back to full as incentive, reduces support she’s owed to $360 per month, minor |
|
3 |
Marok v. Marok, 2003 CanLII 9094 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Man with variable income he claims 40 K imputed to 60 K, interim variation refused due to arrears |
|
4 |
Caterini v. Zaccaria, 2002 CanLII 2772 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man s income drops. Minor 1 K imputation added to his claim instead of 9 K asked |
|
5 |
Courchesne v. Courchesne, 2004 CanLII 5003 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Intransient with alcohol problem for many years ordered to pay 43 K in arrears and imputed at 25 K |
|
6 |
Scholes v. Scholes, 2003 CanLII 2349 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man claims his income at 25 K and court imputes at 60 K |
|
7 |
Roberts v. Roberts, 2004 CanLII 18250 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man declares 36 K and court impute 63 K |
|
8 |
Walsh v. Walsh, 2003 CanLII 2268 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Mans income underimputed creating a shortfall of 42 K arrears |
|
9 |
Kimla v. Golds, 2005 CanLII 6928 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man unemployed and presents plan for new business. Ask income imputed at 30 K but court imputes at 88 K |
|
10 |
Grierson v. Brunton, 2004 CanLII 4019 (ON S.C.) |
w |
13 K in imputed income to unemployed wife, previous job was over 30 K average |
|
11 |
Priftis v. Priftis, 2005 CanLII 47093 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man says his income should be 24 K but court imputes at 39 K |
|
12 |
M. Al. O. v. Me. A. O., 2005 CanLII 2740 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man on unemployment imputed at 40 K per year |
|
13 |
Cherry v. Cherry, 2004 CanLII 1649 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man on disability for 2.5 K per year imputed to 18.5 K, 32 K support arrears reduced to 21 |
|
14 |
Lowe v. Lowe, 2006 CanLII 729 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man imputed to 88 K for future business though he claims 30 K. Wife not imputed for child support |
|
15 |
Derek Cross v. Lila Cross, 2004 CanLII 13409 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man works on contract for over 100 K then is unemployed, income imputed to 50 K 40 K arrears |
|
16 |
D.W. v. C.O., 2006 CanLII 13554 (ON S.C.) |
w |
With a former income of 134 K and current declared income of 33 K given transitional imputation of 38 K then 62 K |
|
17 |
Chrysler v. Chrysler, 2006 CanLII 9596 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Mans imputed income increased from 58 K to 99 K |
|
18 |
Tran v. Lee, 2003 CanLII 11863 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man claims 35 K income imputed to 50 K, 162 K arrears to be paid from house, Mans remaining 50 K to be held as security |
|
19 |
Goryjowski v. Goryjowska, 2005 CanLII 3395 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Mans income imputed at 21 K |
|
20 |
Irwin v. Irwin, 2005 CanLII 8725 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Mans income imputed at 33 K |
|
21 |
Pearson v. McAteer, 2005 CanLII 32002 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man declares 4 K income imputed to 13 K, 6 K in s.7 expenses |
|
22 |
Meikle v. Meikle, 2003 CanLII 2183 (ON S.C.) |
m |
55 K extra income imputed to man from RRSP’s |
|
23 |
Remus v. Remus, 2003 CanLII 2222 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man imputed from 9 K to 10.5 K. Wife pays him net child support, mild |
|
24 |
Clark v. Clark, 2002 CanLII 2773 (ON S.C.) |
m |
5 K per year extra income imputed from unknown source |
|
25 |
Guy v. Tulloch, 2004 CanLII 11695 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man claims 55 K imputed to 102 K. |
|
26 |
J.H. v. S.H., 2004 CanLII 29739 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Income imputed to father but not specified, 1 K spousal support, joint custody switched to sole custody to wife |
|
27 |
Hart v. Hart, 2003 CanLII 2129 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Mans imputed income is almost identical to his stated income, minor |
|
28 |
Bemrose v. Fetter, 2006 CanLII 8201 (ON S.C.) |
w |
Wifes has small imputed income, minor |
|
29 |
Hakim-Kyei v. Kyei, 2005 CanLII 34581 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Claims 22 K imputed to 37 K, retroactive arrears |
|
30 |
Krolyk v. Krolyk, 2005 CanLII 15478 (ON S.C.) |
w |
Imputed income of 10.5 K to wife lowers her spousal support to 1.85 K per month, Wife gets house transferred to her and will get part of mans pension on realization, minor |
|
31 |
Babb v. Downer, 2005 CanLII 3371 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Mans income imputed many times higher than he claimed, costs 4 K |
|
32 |
Bourget v. Bourget, 2006 CanLII 2888 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Mans income imputed upwards 2 K per year for overtime, minor |
|
33 |
Beaudry v. Beaudry, 2004 CanLII 20399 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Leave from work constitutes underemployment, 15 K added to years income, 7 K lump spousal support |
|
33 |
Nanan v. Nanan, 2006 CanLII 12718 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Claims 83 K imputed to 88 K, pays 1.5 K spousal support and 2 K mortgage, and child support, 8.6 K costs |
|
34 |
Tyll v. Dini-Tyll, 2003 CanLII 2262 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man works out of home so cash flow may be more than reported, imputed to 30 K |
|
35 |
Rueter v. Rueter, 2003 CanLII 2231 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man declares 45 K but is imputed to 78 K, 2.5 K per month total support |
|
36 |
Beal v. Beal, 2005 CanLII 30326 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man claims no income and is imputed to 35 K |
|
37 |
Cole v. Cole, 2005 CanLII 44828 (ON S.C.) |
w |
Intentionally underemployed as she earns less as a teacher, imputed to former income, retroactive support and s.7 expenses |
|
38 |
Abdilla v. Abdilla, 2004 CanLII 35086 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man unemployed imputed to 30 K and declared intentionally unemployed |
|
39 |
Lalonde v. Lalonde, 2005 CanLII 16637 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man on unemployment is intentionally unemployed, 21 K support arrears, imputed to 27 K per year |
|
40 |
Marchese v. Marchese, 2002 CanLII 40030 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man studying for PHD can make extra income, imputed at 20 K per year |
|
41 |
Wright v. Wright, 2004 CanLII 19944 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Unemployed man imputed to 40 K per year, RRSP vested to wife for arrears |
|
42 |
Raphael v. Raphael, 2003 CanLII 2215 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Mans stated income 30 K imputed at 150 K, wife, 4.2 K per month total support, wife imputed to 15 K per tear, wife minor |
|
43 |
O'Brien v. O'Brien, 2003 CanLII 2366 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man claims 35 K income and is imputed at 81 K |
|
44 |
David v. David, 2004 CanLII 46652 (ON S.C.)
|
m, w |
Man claims 65 K imputed to 125 K, One year of spousal support at 2.5 K then unemployed wife imputed to 20 K and spousal support drops to 1.75 K for 5 years, wife minor |
|
45 |
Lajoie v. Lajoie, 2005 CanLII 23684 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Mans declared income is 12 K but is imputed to 43 K |
|
46 |
Armstrong v. Armstrong, 2004 CanLII 12100 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man on disability imputed to 47 K per year, lump sum retroactive support |
|
47 |
Richards v. Richards, 2005 CanLII 3398 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man claims 20 K income is imputed to 60 K |
|
48 |
Swanson v. Swanson, 2004 CanLII 48679 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man on welfare and living at YMCA is imputed to 80 K lump sum and contempted when he doesn’t pay, intentionally unemployed, imputed to 40 K per year |
|
49 |
Graham v. Graham, 2005 CanLII 23682 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man declares 100 K income and is imputed to 200 K, 10 K per month total interim support, 35 K interim disbursement to wife |
|
50 |
Dang v. Hornby, 2006 CanLII 12973 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man with 10 K income claimed intentionally unemployed and imputed to 40 K |
|
51 |
Scodras v. Scodras, 2005 CanLII 14146 (ON S.C.) |
w |
Wife imputed to 42 K. Man has custody but pays wife $ 185 per month total support, minor |
|
52 |
Galambos-Towers v. Towers, 2005 CanLII 44386 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Vague imputation of 20 K per year to underearning asset results in $ 200 per month spousal support, property equalization of 122 K to wife |
|
53 |
Jordan v. Stewart, 2002 CanLII 2678 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Previous declared income of 140 K imputed to 227 K, 5.6 K per month in total support |
|
54 |
Biddle v. Biddle, 2004 CanLII 52809 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man declared 228 K imputed to 322 K, 9 K per month retroactive |
|
55 |
J.M.M. v. G.S.M., 2006 CanLII 6457 (ON S.C.) |
m |
2 K income imputed to 70 K, pleadings struck, wife gets exclusive possession of home then vesting order, 1.3 K per month total support, restraining order |
|
56 |
Di Matteo v. Del Medico, 2005 CanLII 27011 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man claims 28 K imputed to 96 K, retroactive support, expert witnesses, 1.2 K per month child support |
|
57 |
Pollock v. Pollock, 2006 CanLII 3483 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Mans disability and pension imputed and grossed up to 50 K per year, 1.9 K per month total support, wife gets exclusive possession of home, retroactive lump sum arrears |
|
58 |
Bolt v. Bolt, 2006 CanLII 7504 (ON S.C.) |
m |
26 K per year imputed to husband from his share of house |
|
59 |
Cunningham v. Montgomery-Cunningham, 2005 CanLII 36261 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man imputed to 107 K then reimputed to139 K, non dissipation order |
|
60 |
Ul Haq v. Ul Haq, 2003 CanLII 2263 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man declares 24 K imputed to 60 K, retroactive arrears of support amd s.7 expenses |
|
61 |
Maceus-Agyekum v. Agyekum, 2005 CanLII 10539 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Additional 50 K per year income imputed, retroactive support, s.7 expenses, lump sum arrears |
|
62 |
Stoate v. Stoate, 2005 CanLII 13820 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man retrains and is intentionally unemployed and imputed at former level of 33 K, arrears |
|
63 |
Trick v. Trick, 2003 CanLII 2260 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Mans income imputed despite separation agreement, retroactive support, lump sum |
|
64 |
Naidoo v. Naidoo, 2004 CanLII 34415 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Mans income imputed 130 K per month, wife at 41 K per month, man pays 1.2 K per month total support, wife mild |
|
65 |
J.B. v. A.B., 2006 CanLII 12294 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man fired from job imputed to 50 K per year |
|
66 |
S.L. v. A.L., 2003 CanLII 2161 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Various imputed incomes for man creating 65 K in retroactive support arrears to be paid in 15 K lumps sums |
|
67 |
Vangroenigen v. Vangroenigen, 2005 CanLII 38896 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man declares 46 K but is imputed to 65 K for not working overtime |
|
68 |
Korevaar v. Allard, 2003 CanLII 2151 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man with declared incoe of 46 K imputed to 66 K |
|
69 |
D.F. v. J.S., 2004 CanLII 8474 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Wife imputed at25 K , Mans income increased by 8 K over claimed, man pays 4.5 K per month total support, wife mild |
|
70 |
Colafranceschi v. Colafranceschi, 2005 CanLII 10646 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man imputed to 85 K from previous imputation of 62 K, wife gets ¾ of assets due to lump sum |
|
71 |
D.J.C. v. N.C., 2004 CanLII 47783 (ON S.C.) |
w |
Wifes income imputed at 25 K, Mans income 196 K, wife recieves 4.9 K per month total support, mild |
|
72 |
Juvatopolos v. Juvatopolos, 2004 CanLII 34843 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Man imputed to 50 K, wife underemployed and reduced from receiving 1.4 K to 1.2 K, then enters another relationship and support reduced to $ 400, wife mild |
|
73 |
Reidy v. Reidy, 2005 CanLII 44401 (ON S.C.) |
w |
Wife claims 18 K income imputed to 20 K, father has custody, wife to pay $ 400 per month in child support, father to pay 1.2 K per month spousal support, mild |
|
74 |
Roscoe v. Roscoe, 2003 CanLII 2037 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man with no income and heavy stock losses imputed to 45 K and support set at 54 K |
|
75 |
Hewat v. Hewat, 2003 CanLII 2131 (ON S.C.) |
w |
Wife imputed to 25 K , combined spousal and child support reduced to 4.5 K per month from 5.5 K, mild |
|
76 |
D.B. v. J.B., 2006 CanLII 726 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man claims 15 K imputed to 26 K |
|
77 |
Straight v. Straight, 2004 CanLII 7046 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man declares 58 K imputed to 70 K per year, court declines to impute wife, man pays 1 K spousal support |
|
78 |
Blaschuk v. Bridgewater, 2005 CanLII 28787 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Man intentionally unemployed imputed to 55 K, wife imputed to 32 K, Man pays $ 800 per month in support, wife mild |
|
79 |
Bedi v. Bedi, 2004 CanLII 34426 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Man imputed to 97 K wife imputed to 50 K, man must pay wife 1.2 K per month, retroactive support, wife mild |
|
80 |
Dhanna v. Dhanna, 2004 CanLII 46660 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man not working but imputed to 77 K per year, Man must pay 2.5 K per month total support, non depletion order |
|
81 |
Di Luca v. Di Luca, 2003 CanLII 2343 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Man and wife imputed, man pays equivalent of 3 K support per month, wife mild |
|
82 |
Belcastro v. Belcastro, 2004 CanLII 10991 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Man must be hiding income so set at 50 K per year, wife imputed at 64 K, Man must pay 1.1 K per year, wife mild |
|
83 |
Barrick v. Barrick, 2006 CanLII 1317 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man goes bankrupt, claims 32 K, imputed to 40 K, Must pay 1 K per month spousal support |
|
84 |
Vandenelsen v. Merkley, 2003 CanLII 1965 (ON S.C.) |
w |
Wife who abducted children imputed to 30 K per year though unemployed, temporary suspension of support payable and some arrears rescinded |
|
85 |
L.S.M. v. A.M., 2006 CanLII 13413 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man unemployed and waiting for surgery imputed to 35 K per year |
|
86 |
Mashadi (Bankruptcy), Re, 2004 CanLII 15923 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man goes bankrupt after judge imputes a 200 K income to him on wifes claims he runs a cash business |
|
87 |
Dalgleish v. Dalgleish, 2003 CanLII 1944 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Imputed to 75 K per year, 1.8 K per month support, vesting order on house, s.7 expenses |
|
88 |
Brown v. Brown, 2004 CanLII 12750 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man declared 2 K income imputed to 15 K, man claims to be disabled but court finds he has a cash business |
|
89 |
MacMillan v. MacMillan, 2002 CanLII 2685 (ON S.C.) |
w |
Wife imputed from declared income of 6 K to 20 K, wife recieves total support of 4.5 K per month reduced from 5.25 K due to drop in mans income, mild |
|
90 |
Eberl v. Eberl, 2004 CanLII 10617 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man laid off from job is imputed to 28 K and it’s ordered no variations until his income exceeds 28 K, court refuses to impute income to wife, Man must payspousal support and $ 500 per month in child support |
|
91 |
Cass v. Dyke, 2004 CanLII 5095 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Mans declared income of 43 K imputed to 175 K, 2.85 K per month total support, security deposit |
|
92 |
Millward v. Millward, 2003 CanLII 2116 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man imputed to 60 K at uncontested trial has income reduced to actual 46 K, man must pay spousal support of 1 K per month for 1 year and child support |
|
93 |
Bullock v. Bullock, 2004 CanLII 16949 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man takes early retirement at age 62, court says he is underemployed and imputes 120 K per year income, no variation of arrears |
|
94 |
Hill v. Hill, 2002 CanLII 2790 (ON S.C |
m |
Mans declared income of 58 K imputed to 125 K |
|
95 |
Hitchens v. Hitchens, 2004 CanLII 12899 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man intentionally unemployed for leaving the country, lump sum retroactive support, vesting order, made 8 K imputed to 45 K |
|
96 |
Shaw-McInnis v. Crawford, 2003 CanLII 2241 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Mans declared income of14 K imputed to 43 K and no relief for 2 years on welfare |
|
97 |
V.S.J. v. L.J.G., 2004 CanLII 17126 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Mans 26 K income imputed to 41 K, sexual assault on child allegations unproven, supervised access |
|
98 |
Hogan v. Hogan, 2004 CanLII 31372 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man claims 39 K income, imputed to 85 K |
|
99 |
Bruzas v. Bruzas, 2005 CanLII 36267 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man imputed from 64 K claimed to 250 K, separation agreement overturned and man must pay 3.4 K instead of 2.5 K per month |
|
100 |
De Zen v. De Zen, 2002 CanLII 45410 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man quits job due to back problem, court rules intentionally unemployed and imputes income of 1.9 million per year |
|
101 |
Harris v. Harris, 2006 CanLII 9141 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man claims 12 K income imputed to 20 K |
|
102 |
Fang v. Fang, 2004 CanLII 13068 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Man unemployed is imputed to 60 K then to 100 K, total support of 2.15 K per month to be paid to wife, wife imputed to 20 K, wife mild |
|
103 |
Dench v. Dench, 2005 CanLII 22211 (ON S.C.) |
m, w |
Man imputed to 150 K, wife imputed to 15 K, Man must pay 3.1 K per month in total support, wife mild |
|
104 |
Campbell v. Szoke, 2003 CanLII 2291 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Mans maximum income over 6 years is 16 K imputed to 24 K, man must pay 1.1 K per month in spousal support |
|
105 |
Ladisa v. Ladisa, 2004 CanLII 48170 (ON S.C.) |
w |
Wife imputed to 26 K and must pay $232 in child support to man, Man sick and court declines to impute, man denied spousal support |
|
106 |
Meade v. Meade, 2002 CanLII 2806 (ON S.C.)
|
m |
Man with previously variable income is unemployed, income imputed to 53 K, support arrears, lump sum payment |
|
107 |
A.N. v. M.A.Z., 2006 CanLII 12316 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man pays 1.8 K per month based on an imputed income |
|
108 |
L.A.G. v. M.E.F.G., 2004 CanLII 53222 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man intentionally unemployed is imputed to 55 K which was maximum preseparation income |
|
109 |
Testa v. Basi, 2005 CanLII 25186 (ON S.C.) |
m |
Man bankrupted and living in trailer is imputed to 25 K per year to pay support |