Income imputation in family law occurs when a court assigns an income to a non-disclosing or underemployed spouse to calculate child or spousal support. This process requires courts to balance fairness with evidence-based reasoning. Two recent Ontario cases, Osanebi v. Osanebi (2023) and de Pimentel v. Rodriguez (2024), address whether statistical measures like median income or minimum wage should be used when imputing income in the absence of reliable evidence. While Osanebi embraced the use of median income as a default for fairness, Rodriguez rejected it due to evidentiary concerns, reaffirming established principles. It is important to note that Osanebi is an outlier case and does not reflect the typical judicial approach to income imputation at this time. What Is Income Imputation? Income imputation is a method used in family law when a party fails to provide adequate financial disclosure or deliberately minimizes their income to reduce support obligations. The court imputes (assigns) an income based on factors such as: The party’s education, skills, and employment history. Job opportunities and earning potential in the local market. Evidence of past income or lifestyle. The purpose is to ensure fair support calculations under the Child Support Guidelines (CSG) or Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG). Median Income and Minimum Wage Median Income: The middle point in a set of earnings where half of earners make more and half make less. For example, if the median income for a particular trade is $83,000, this reflects a "typical" earning level, avoiding the distortion of extremely high or low outliers. Minimum Wage: The lowest hourly rate that employers are legally required to pay. In Ontario, the minimum wage is currently $15.50 per hour (approximately $30,000 annually for full-time work). Courts often use minimum wage as a baseline for imputing income when no other evidence is available, as it reflects the least an employable adult could earn. Analysis Osanebi v. Osanebi (2023): Median Income as a Default Justice Akazaki took an unusual approach, advocating for imputing income based on median income when respondents fail to disclose their earnings. He criticized defaulting to minimum wage and emphasized: Fairness: Minimum wage reflects only the lowest 10% of the workforce and is unrepresentative of most earners. Using it disproportionately burdens custodial parents while rewarding income concealment. Pragmatism: Median income, such as the Canadian average hourly wage of $30 (approximately $50,000 annually), offers a more realistic baseline aligned with practices in other legal areas, like personal injury. Policy Impact: Imputing median income incentivizes respondents to engage with proceedings and provide accurate disclosure, knowing the court will otherwise assume they earn at least an average income. Justice Akazaki imputed an income of $50,000, combining historical data with statistical averages. This approach, however, diverges from the traditional evidentiary framework in family law and remains an outlier. de Pimentel v. Rodriguez (2024): Rejecting Median Income Justice Myers rejected median income, reaffirming the established principle that income imputation must be based on admissible, respondent-specific evidence. He reasoned: Evidentiary Standards: Statistical averages, like median income, are irrelevant without evidence connecting them to the respondent’s skills, education, and job history. Myers cautioned against arbitrary imputations based on generalized data. Historical Income: The respondent’s last known income of $50,000 was the only reliable figure available. This evidence-based approach adhered to Drygala v. Pauli (2002), which emphasizes that imputations must be grounded in the respondent’s specific circumstances. Judicial Rigor: Myers stressed that while non-disclosure poses challenges, courts cannot abandon evidentiary principles for policy-driven shortcuts like median income without expert evidence to provide context. Conclusion Justice Akazaki’s decision in Osanebi is an outlier, advocating for the use of median income as a default imputation to address systemic non-disclosure issues. In contrast, Rodriguez reaffirms the more traditional approach, requiring income imputations to be based on specific, admissible evidence linked to the respondent’s circumstances. This divergence underscores the evolving judicial considerations in cases of financial non-disclosure but affirms that Osanebi does not represent the prevailing standard in Ontario courts.

The sale of the matrimonial home is one of the most contentious issues for recently separated couples. One party often seeks to force the sale of the matrimonial home to access equity while the other may resist for various reasons, such as emotional attachment or financial concerns. Courts in Ontario have frequently dealt with this matter, balancing financial realities with the best interests of the parties and the children involved. Two recent cases, Kamil v. Bouchir, 2024 ONSC 1298 and Ricketts v. Ricketts, 2024 ONSC, provide insightful perspectives on how courts approach forcing the sale of the matrimonial home in different circumstances. Kamil v. Bouchir: Navigating Mental Health and Financial Interests In Kamil v. Bouchir, the husband sought to sell the matrimonial home, where his ex-wife and their children continued to reside. The father argued that selling the home would allow both parties to access their share of the equity, providing financial relief after years of unresolved family law issues. The mother opposed the sale, because of the potential negative impact on their autistic child, who relied on the stability of his familiar environment. Justice Vella acknowledged that a joint tenant generally has a prima facie right to sell a property, but in family law matters, particularly where the best interests of children are concerned, the decision isn't automatic. In this case, the mother argued that forcing the sale of the matrimonial home would disrupt their autistic child’s mental health, though she could not provide expert evidence to support her claims. The court ultimately ordered the sale but delayed the closing date to allow time for the mother to prepare the child for the transition. While forcing the sale of the matrimonial home is often a legal right, courts will carefully weigh the potential impacts on children. Ricketts v. Ricketts: Financial Realities Trump Emotional Attachment In Ricketts v. Ricketts, the issue of forcing the sale of the matrimonial home arose under urgent circumstances. The mother argued that the sale was necessary due to imminent foreclosure, as the father had stopped paying the mortgage and refused to cooperate. The father, however, opposed the sale, insisting that the home should be retained for the children, despite financial realities making it impossible for him to maintain the property. Justice Pazaratz emphasized that while emotional attachments and the desire to retain the home for children are important, they cannot override the financial unsustainability of the situation. Forcing the sale of the matrimonial home was deemed necessary to prevent further financial losses and to ensure that both parties could benefit from the equity before it was lost to foreclosure. The court granted the mother exclusive authority to manage the sale, given the father's refusal to cooperate.   Key Legal Principles on Forcing the Sale Both cases highlight several important legal principles when it comes to forcing the sale of the matrimonial home: Prima Facie Right: A joint tenant typically has the right to sell a jointly owned property unless the opposing party can demonstrate significant prejudice or hardship. Children’s Best Interests: The court will consider the emotional and psychological impact of the sale on any children, particularly if they have special needs or are deeply attached to the home. Financial Reality: Courts often prioritize financial realities, especially when the property is unaffordable or at risk of foreclosure, as seen in Ricketts. Delaying a sale when the financial situation is untenable can lead to greater losses for both parties. Court’s Discretion: Even where there is a right to sell, the court may delay the process or put conditions in place to protect vulnerable parties, as illustrated in Kamil. Conclusion In Ontario family law, forcing the sale of the matrimonial home is not a straightforward process. While joint tenants have a legal right to seek the sale of a property, courts take a holistic approach, considering the financial viability of keeping the home and the impact of a sale on children or a vulnerable spouse. Recent cases like Kamil v. Bouchir and Ricketts v. Ricketts reinforce that, in many situations, financial realities will ultimately prevail, but the timing and manner of the sale are carefully calibrated to minimize harm to the family. If you are dealing with a family law matter involving forcing the sale of the matrimonial home, it is important to seek legal advice to understand your rights and obligations.