Spousal support disputes often turn on one key question: what should each party be earning?
In Bosrock v Hutchison, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that courts will take a practical, fact-driven approach to income, especially where one party is unemployed and the other is a high earner.
The Case in Context
The parties were both bankers and cohabited for approximately seven and a half years.
By the time of trial:
- the wife was earning approximately $923,000 per year
- the husband, age 57, was unemployed
- income of $50,000 per year was imputed to the husband
The trial judge awarded spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines:
- approximately $10,900 per month
- for a duration of five and a half years
The wife appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Imputing Income Is Not Automatic
A central issue was whether the husband should have been attributed a higher income.
The wife argued that:
- the husband was capable of earning significantly more
- his income should be imputed at a higher level, reducing support
The Court rejected that argument.
The key point is this: imputing income requires evidence. It is not enough to say someone “could” earn more. The party making that claim must prove it.
The Burden Falls on the Party Making the Claim
The Court made it clear that:
- the onus is on the party seeking to impute income
- speculation or assumptions are not sufficient
- the analysis must be grounded in the specific facts of the case
In this case, the trial judge accepted a modest imputed income based on the evidence available. The Court of Appeal found no error in that approach.
High Income Payors Still Face High-End Support
With the wife earning over $900,000 annually, the court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines at the higher end of the range.
This reflects a consistent theme in Ontario family law:
- significant income disparity often leads to top-end support outcomes
- courts will look at budgets, lifestyle, and fairness
- the result must reflect the real financial gap between the parties
The fact that the husband was unemployed did not eliminate entitlement. It reinforced the imbalance.
Budgets and Real-Life Impact Matters
The trial judge conducted a detailed analysis of the parties’ budgets.
This is important because:
- support is not determined in a vacuum
- courts look at actual financial needs and circumstances
- lifestyle during the relationship can inform the outcome
The Court of Appeal deferred to that fact-specific analysis.
Why This Case Matters
Bosrock v Hutchison highlights three practical points for Ontario family law cases:
- Income must be proven, not assumed, when seeking to impute it
- High earners should expect courts to consider the upper end of the SSAG range
- Trial judges have significant discretion when applying a fact-specific analysis
The Bottom Line
Spousal support is not driven by theoretical earning capacity. It is driven by evidence and fairness.
If you are arguing that income should be imputed:
- you need clear, persuasive evidence
- you must show what the person can realistically earn
- you must connect that evidence to the facts of the case
Without that, courts will be reluctant to adjust income assumptions.
For more insights on Ontario spousal support, high income cases, and income imputation, visit FamilyLLB.com or connect with Russell Alexander Collaborative Family Lawyers.
