Skip to content

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience and security.

Generally, the starting point for determining Guideline income for child support purposes is a party’s total income as set out in their income tax return. However, section 19(1) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines (CSG) allows for the imputation of income to a party (payor or recipient, although more commonly the payor). Where appropriate, the Court may assign income to a party over and above their stated tax return income, with that imputed income used to determine child support obligations. Attempts to impute an income often arise when someone is unemployed, underemployed, suspected to be paid in cash, and in other similar circumstances.

The former legal test for the imputation of income in Alberta was more restrictive than in other Canadian provinces. This former test was governed by the Alberta Court of Appeal (ABCA) decision in Hunt v. Smolis-Hunt, 2001 ABCA 229, where the Court interpreted CSG s. 19(1) to require the “deliberate intent” of a party to avoid/lessen a support obligation for income to be imputed.  Subsequent Alberta caselaw interpreting Hunt broadened this standard to some extent to include actual or inferred deliberate intent, but the test remained stringent in Alberta.

In Peters v. Atchooay, 2022 ABCA 347, the ABCA overturned Hunt and brought Alberta into lockstep with other provinces by applying a new (for Alberta) test of reasonableness when considering the imputation of income for support purposes.

In Peters, the ABCAgave four reasons for its reconsideration of Hunt:

  1. There is nothing in the wording of section 19(1) that required a deliberate intent to evade. 
  2. The application of the deliberate evasion test is “impractical and unworkable”. 
  3. The approach in Hunt is not in line with the new Divorce Act and Child Support Guidelines. Instead, it should be modernized and child-centric. Furthermore, having to prove intent to evade child support obligations requires continued conflict between the parents.
  4. Finally, “Alberta is wrong; the rest of the Canada is right” (para. 42).

Peters sets out the new test for imputation of income:

  1. First, is the party intentionally underemployed or unemployed? The Court will examine all relevant factors and consider if the circumstances surrounding a party’s income are beyond that party’s control. The factors to consider include the age of the payor, their earning capacity, and their qualifications.
  2. Second, do any listed exceptions in CSG s. 19(1)(a) apply?  These exceptions are the needs of a child of the marriage and/or the reasonable health and educational needs of the payor. These exceptions, if applicable, are not automatic or permanent, and will be determined based on the circumstances of each case.
  3. Third, if a payor parent is found to be intentionally underemployed or unemployed and they are not saved by a recognized exception from section 19(1)(a), should judicial discretion be exercised to impute income? If yes, the Court then may impute income. 

Peters reverses the burden of proof from Hunt.  Previously, the recipient had to prove that income should be imputed on the intention test. Now, the payor must establish that their income is reasonable.  This is a practical approach as it is the payor who has the “insight and influence into that employment decision.”

Peters reinforces that the child’s well-being is the priority: “a parent’s personal goals and lifestyle choices do not take priority over their obligation to financially support their children.”  While parents will continue to control their employment and income choices (arguably a predominant consideration in the old test under Hunt), those choices will now be viewed from a reasonableness lens as opposed to a lens that focuses on a party’s intentions.

Notably, the court wrote that a “high-income earning and sole provider… is not necessarily shackled to that exact lifestyle upon separation for the rest of their working life.” In addition, where a parent takes on more parenting obligations post-separation, “those new parenting obligations must be factored into the equation”.

In addition to providing the new test for income imputation, the ABCA provided a non-exhaustive list of guiding principles:

  1. There is a general duty to work: “A parent’s limited work experience or job skills do not justify a failure to pursue lower skilled employment or employment in which the skills can be learned on the job.”
  2. The starting point of assessing reasonableness is a payor’s earning capacity.
  3. The court has discretion.  Reasonable decisions made by a parent who earns less than the maximum of their earning capability do not require imputation.
  4. The obligation to support children is the overarching goal. A parent cannot be excused from support obligations to further unrealistic or unproductive career goals.
  5. Agreements made between spouses before separation about parenting arrangements are relevant but not necessarily determinative.
  6. What is reasonable at one point in time may not be reasonable in the future.
  7. The ultimate onus rests on the party opposing imputation to prove that the unemployment/underemployment was involuntary or was a result of a listed exception. If neither apply, the party must establish that the underemployment/ unemployment is reasonable, having regard to all circumstances.

The stringent “deliberate intent” test from Hunt no longer applies. Peters provides a new framework to address the issue of an intentional unemployment or under-employment, arguably easing the burden on parties who seek this relief in the context of support obligations.

[Janet] thanks for letting me know of your retirement… I’m sad to see you go but hope for your rest and enjoyment for all you’ve done for my family and others… With all my thanks I want to express all my appreciation for all you’ve done for us and all the grief it was to deal with! You were the right fit.
A.W., Client
I write this review based on my experience when working with Stacey Lee as my legal representative. Simply put, Stacey is attentive (or vigilant if you prefer), knowledgeable, professional, fair, and personable. It was important for me to have someone that was responsive and competent. I never waited more than 24 hours for a reply and am very happy with the resulting agreement that was created, as it represented a solution that was best for all parties involved – which was important to me. Stacey likes to say I was the ideal client, but the reality is that she was the ideal representative, providing legal advice, while keeping me abreast of the big picture. Based on my experience with Stacey, I highly recommend her.
S.N., Client
From the moment we met, Janet had not only a business approach to my situation but also a level of compassion and friendliness. I’ve worked now with Janet for years and not one time did she fail to meet my expectations. I have always felt at ease just hearing her voice. If she didn’t have the answer immediately, she has always provided one promptly. She has been my Rock and Sounding Board. I’ve referred her to others. If anyone is in need of a GREAT family lawyer, Janet Russell in my view is the lady to contact.
N.M., Client
Stacey, Thank you once again for all your help with my file. I can’t express how much I appreciated you having my back yesterday and you do it so calmly. Your perspective and guidance helped me a lot – thank you. It felt like a whirlwind of numbers but you helped me keep perspective as we went along…Thank you again for helping us bring things to closure.
B.F., Client
Very satisfied with the services provided by the lawyers at SVR Lawyers! It was a long and convoluted divorce process, but Abram Averbach, Cindy Lee and their assistants have helped me to navigate through it and finalize it. I highly recommend them!
J.B., Client
Stacey Lee handled the sale of my business and separation from a spouse attending to both my corporate and family law matters. Stacey provided a calm and realistic voice when tensions and emotions were high. Stacey approached the resolution of my files with opposing counsel in a collaborative way, seeking to reduce court appearances and conflict between all parties involved. I would work with Stacey again and recommend her to anyone requiring assistance in family or corporate matters.
H.S., Client

Find the right lawyer for you