In the case de Pimentel v Rodriguez, 2024 ONSC 2844, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice reviewed an uncontested family law application involving complex issues of spousal and child support, financial disclosure, and property division.

Key Facts and Issues:

  1. Marital Background:
    • The respondent fled to Spain with his girlfriend, leaving significant debt and failing to pay any child or spousal support.
    • The applicant, on ODSP due to disabilities, was left to manage the household and mortgage without ownership of the matrimonial home, which was in the respondent’s name.
  2. Financial Disclosure:
    • The respondent’s employment history included roles as an industrial electrician and a sole proprietorship in JP Cable Solutions.
    • The applicant alleged that the respondent’s declared income was underreported, supported by inadmissible hearsay from job listing websites.
  3. Income Imputation:
    • The applicant requested the court to impute an income of $89,682.67 to the respondent, based on internet job ads.
    • The court rejected these ads as hearsay and highlighted the necessity of reliable, admissible evidence for income imputation.
    • Ultimately, the court imputed a $50,000 income to the respondent, based on his declared earnings and lack of credible evidence for higher income.
  4. Spousal and Child Support:
    • The applicant was awarded spousal support at the high end of the range, reflecting the respondent’s financial abandonment and the applicant’s prolonged hardship.
    • The court ordered a lump sum spousal support payment, funded by the respondent’s share of the matrimonial home.
    • Child support was calculated based on the respondent’s imputed income, covering the period from separation until the children finished school.
  5. Property Division:
    • The applicant sought to vest the matrimonial home in her children’s names to protect her ODSP eligibility and simplify legal transactions.
    • The court denied this request, emphasizing the legal constraints on property transfer and the necessity to comply with existing laws.
  6. Conclusion:
    • The court emphasized the importance of valid evidence in financial disputes, rejecting arbitrary or inadmissible claims.
    • The decision underscored the principle that income imputation must be based on reliable evidence, not hearsay or arbitrary figures.

This case highlights the complexities of family law, especially in situations involving financial abandonment, and underscores the court’s reliance on solid evidence for fair adjudication.

For more details, you can read the full decision here.


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *