In a recent decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a husband’s appeal challenging the imputation of income for support purposes. The case involved a father who claimed his income ranged from $40,000 in 2015 to $127,000 in 2019. However, the mother argued that the father’s income should be imputed at a higher level due to the engineering consulting services he provided to a family-owned real estate development business.
At trial, the mother contended that the father was receiving compensation not in the form of direct salary, but through substantial financial benefits, including free luxury accommodation. Despite the father’s claim that he held title to multiple properties as a bare trustee for his brother (who he asserted was the actual beneficial owner and financier), the trial judge sided with the mother. The judge imputed an additional $3,000 per month in non-taxable income to the father, reflecting the value of the luxury accommodation provided.
The father appealed this imputation, but the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision, finding no reviewable error. While gifts are typically not included in income for imputation purposes, the Court of Appeal agreed that the trial judge’s reasoning in this case was appropriate.
Additionally, the trial judge had ordered the father to pay retroactive child support dating back to the child’s birth, citing the child’s needs and the father’s lack of financial disclosure as key factors. The Court of Appeal also upheld this aspect of the ruling, finding no error in the trial judge’s approach.
This case reaffirms that financial benefits, such as free housing, can be considered in income imputation for support purposes when they effectively serve as compensation: Amid v. Jones, 2024 ONCA 595.
0 Comments