In Saskatchewan, as in many jurisdictions, family law governs various aspects of familial relationships, including child support and spousal support. A crucial aspect of determining support payments involves assessing each party’s income and earning capacity. However, situations arise where one party may intentionally limit their income, either to avoid support obligations or for other reasons. This practice is known as intentional underemployment.
Understanding the legal principles surrounding intentional underemployment is vital for both parties involved in family law disputes and the legal professionals advising them. This article aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of intentional underemployment in Saskatchewan law, exploring relevant statutes, case law, and legal principles.
What is Intentional Underemployment?
Intentional underemployment occurs when a party voluntarily reduces their income or earning capacity, either by working fewer hours, taking a lower-paying job, or refusing employment opportunities for which they are qualified. This deliberate action can have significant implications in family law cases, particularly concerning child support and spousal support obligations.
In Saskatchewan, the legal framework for addressing intentional underemployment primarily derives from the Federal Child Support Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) and relevant case law. Section 19(1)(a) of the Guidelines provides the court with the discretion to impute income to a spouse who is intentionally underemployed. However, this imputation is subject to certain exceptions, such as when the underemployment is due to the spouse’s health needs or the needs of their children.
What does the Case Law tell us?
Several Saskatchewan court cases offer valuable insights into how intentional underemployment is addressed in practice. For example, in Klein v Klein (2019 SKQB 268), the court considered whether a spouse’s decision to work part-time was justified by health concerns or amounted to intentional underemployment. The court emphasized the importance of providing specific evidence to justify underemployment based on health issues.
Similarly, in Balas v Balas (2009 SKQB 14), the court examined a spouse’s decision to work part-time despite having qualifications and a history of higher-paying employment. The court imputed income to the underemployed spouse, highlighting the need for parties to demonstrate the reasonableness of their employment choices.
When assessing intentional underemployment cases, Balas, Klein, and many other Saskatchewan decisions consider various non-exhaustive factors, including:
- The reasonableness of the underemployed party’s employment choices.
- The party’s qualifications, education, skills, and work history.
- Any health concerns or disabilities affecting the party’s ability to work.
- The availability of suitable employment opportunities.
- The standard of living enjoyed during the marriage or relationship.
- The party’s efforts to seek alternative forms of employment.
How can this impact Child Support and Spousal Support?
Intentional underemployment can have significant implications for child support and spousal support calculations. If a court determines that a party is intentionally underemployed, it may impute income to that party based on their earning capacity rather than their actual income. This imputed income can then be used to calculate support payments, ensuring that both parties fulfill their financial obligations.
What does it all mean?
Despite the legal framework in place, addressing intentional underemployment in family law cases can present challenges. Parties may dispute the reasonableness of employment choices or the impact of health concerns on earning capacity. Additionally, gathering sufficient evidence to support claims of intentional underemployment or health-related limitations can be expensive, complex and time-consuming.
Intentional underemployment is a significant issue in family law cases in Saskatchewan, with implications for child support, spousal support, and the financial well-being of parties and their dependents. Understanding the legal principles and considerations surrounding intentional underemployment is essential for both litigants and legal professionals navigating family law disputes. By examining relevant statutes, case law, and factors considered by the court, parties can effectively address issues of intentional underemployment and ensure fair outcomes in family law proceedings.
If you or someone you know is facing a situation of an underemployed ex partner, or if you are curious as to whether your present employment is considered underemployment, contacting a local lawyer is strongly advised.
The information in this article does not constitute legal advice. The law may have changed since this article was first published. You should consult with your lawyer to confirm the current state of the law and obtain advice specific to your situation.