The applicant brought a motion seeking interim child support after a shared parenting arrangement ended when the respondent relocated and began operating a dog‑boarding business that generated minimal income.
The respondent argued that support should be based on his actual business income.
The court found that the respondent was intentionally underemployed within the meaning of s. 19(1)(a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, noting his limited efforts to obtain comparable employment, the voluntary decision to invest his time and savings in a start‑up business with little anticipated income, and his historical earning capacity from long‑term employment.
Relying on prior earnings history and the principles in Lawson v. Lawson and Drygala v. Pauli, the court imputed income of $60,000.
Interim child support for two children was ordered retroactive to January 1, 2011 with credit for amounts already paid.