T.G. v D.G. 2025 ONSC 7100

BACKGROUND

The Applicant mother, Ms. T.G. and the Respondent father, Mr. D.G. married in July 2008 and separated on September 1, 2021. The father moved out of the home on November 1, 2021, and the mother has remained in the matrimonial home having primary care of the parties’ two 15-year-old twins. The mother is employed full-time as a teacher with an income of about $117,000 as of 2024. The father is self-employed as a medical doctor by a Medicine Professional Corporation of which he has an interest in and primarily practices with the local health center as an anesthesiologist. His “Guideline Income” for support purposes was $840,000 in 2020, $912,000 in 2021, and $808,000 in 2022. The father gave evidence that this income was achieved on an overloaded schedule that cause him to work 70-90 hours per week.

Shortly after the parties were married, they decided it was necessary to move to Dryden, a small rural town, to accommodate the father’s employment and be closer to family. The mother alleged that she lost an opportunity to become a principal at her former workplace in Kingston because of the move as there was little room for promotion at her new teaching position in Dryden. In the meantime, the mother advances that the reason the father had the opportunity to keep improving his income was because he had less responsibilities at home. During the separation, the father made threats to quit his family medicine practice and reduce his income and thereby pay less support. He eventually closed his family medicine practice in 2023.

ISSUES

1. The overarching issue is whether dad’s income should be imputed to $650,000 for the years 2023, 2024, 2025 and ongoing.

ANALYSIS

In answering this question, the court applied the evidentiary framework affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Kohli v. Thom 2025 ONCA 200. When determining whether income should be imputed, the court should ask the following three questions:

1. Is the party intentionally under-employed or unemployed?
2. If so, is the intentional under-employment or unemployment required by virtue of his or her reasonable educational needs, the needs of the child or reasonable health needs?
3. If not, what income is appropriately imputed?

Is the father intentionally under-employed?

The court said that there is “no question” that the father voluntarily made a choice to reduce his employment when he made the decision to close his family medicine practice. He went from working 70-90 hours per week to working less than 50 hours per week and earning half his previous income.

Is the intentional under-employment required for his reasonable educational needs, the needs of the child or reasonable health needs?

The father took the position that he could not sustain working as much as he did over an extended period of time and would have eventually slowed down regardless of whether the parties’ separated.

This was contrary to the evidence he gave at trial that he would have continued to keep up 70-90 hours per week had the mother been more flexible and supported him in co-parenting. Furthermore, despite indicating that the choice to close his practice was to be more available for the children, his parenting schedule consisted of Wednesday and Thursday evenings and every second weekend from Friday to Sunday. This was only being followed by one of the children.

Ultimately, the court indicated that the fact that the father threatened to quit his family medicine practiced and followed through with it could not be ignored. The court used a balanced approach, explaining that working 70-90 hours per week is not sustainable, however, it was also not reasonable for him to reduce his income by half.

What income is appropriately imputed?

In asking how much should be imputed, the court must have regard to the payor’s capacity to earn income by considering factors such as age, education, skills, health, employment history, standard of living enjoyed during the relationship, and available employment opportunities. According to Lawson v. Lawson (2006) 81 O.R. (3d) 321, the court also looks at the amount of income the party could earn if they were to work to capacity.

In terms of education, skills, and availability employment opportunities, the court found that the father had the capacity to earn income greater than what he was earning at the time of trial. He was relatively young (46 years old at the time of trial) and there was no evidence that any health issues have affected his ability to work.

The court outlined that when the father was working at full capacity (90 hours per week) from 2020 to 2022, his average income was about $853,000. The court considered a one-quarter reduction in his hours and income, representing 67 hours per week and an income of $639,750. Further a one-third reduction in his hours and income was also considered. This was calculated as 60 hours per week and an income of $569,000.

CONCLUSION

The court decided that the most balanced result was to impute the father with the middle range between 60 to 67 hours per week of work, which equated to $605,000 for 2024, 2025, and ongoing.

Sinc 2023 was a transition year for the father, wherein he was still operating and winding down in his family medicine practice, the court sided with the mother and imputed the father at $650,000 for that year.

With respect to retroactive child support, based on the imputed incomes above, the father was ordered to pay $156,308. In terms of spousal support, as the father’s income was so high, the court found that the mother was receiving beyond what was required to meet the needs for the children, and it would be reasonable to fix spousal support in the low range of the “with child support” formula. Further, for section 7 expenses, the order sought by the mother was a 70/30 split and that is what was granted.