Following a lengthy marriage breakdown, the parties litigated issues of child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.
The respondent sought retroactive and ongoing support based on imputing a high income to the applicant, alleging intentional underemployment.
The court found the applicant was not intentionally underemployed, accepting evidence that his consulting business declined due to market realities and personal limitations, and that mental health issues affected his ability to maintain higher‑level employment.
Limited income was imputed for certain periods and $40,000 was imputed for ongoing support purposes.
The court determined the applicant had significantly overpaid support, declined to order repayment, rejected a request to vest the matrimonial home in the respondent, and resolved the equalization dispute with a modest payment after crediting a prior advance.
