A distinct issue within imputation law is the payor who earned one income before separation and a lower one after. The change may be genuine or it may be convenient. Ontario law does not let the payor resolve that ambiguity in their own favour by default. It requires them to justify the drop.
The Standard
A parent who takes a lower-paying position after separation must provide compelling reasons to justify lower support being paid to dependants. That standard comes from Riel v. Holland, 2003, 67 O.R. (3d) 417 (C.A.). The burden of explanation sits with the party whose income has fallen. Absent compelling reasons, the court is not bound to accept the reduced figure as the measure of the payor’s capacity.
This connects to the broader imputation framework. “Intentional” under-employment requires only a voluntary act to earn less than one is capable of earning; no bad faith is needed. A post-separation move to lower-paying work is exactly the kind of voluntary act that invites scrutiny — and the compelling-reasons requirement is how the court structures that scrutiny.
The Nuance: Genuine Constraint Versus Voluntary Choice
The requirement is not a rule against ever changing jobs. The line runs between a voluntary choice to earn less and a genuine, evidenced constraint on earning. A real market decline that reduces available work can be a legitimate reason; a preference for less demanding work, or a convenient reduction timed to the litigation, is not. The distinction is evidentiary — the payor must show the constraint, not merely assert it.
This nuance also shapes the remedy. A court persuaded that some genuine market pressure exists, but not that it justifies the full drop, can impute a figure between the pre-separation level and the payor’s claimed current income — recognising real conditions without accepting a self-selected floor. The compelling-reasons inquiry is not all-or-nothing; it calibrates.
For Counsel On Each Side
Acting for the payor: the compelling-reasons record must be built with evidence — documentation of the market conditions, the search for comparable work, the constraints relied on. Assertion in an affidavit will not carry it.
Acting for the recipient: press the absence of that evidence. Where the payor offers no documented reason for the drop, the standard is not met, and the pre-separation earning history remains available as the basis for imputation. This article is general information about Ontario family law procedure and is not legal advice. It does not describe any specific client’s matter. For advice on your own situation, speak with a lawyer or set up a consult with us today.
