Imputed Income and Forgone Commissions

In Bistron v. Soni, 2026 ONSC 2567, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed a child support dispute between unmarried parents who shared parenting of their five-year-old child under a longstanding 2-2-3 parenting arrangement. Although the parties had already resolved most parenting issues through a Parenting Agreement, they disagreed significantly over each parent’s income for child support purposes and whether certain payments, benefits, and forgone earnings should be included in support calculations.  

The Applicant mother was a salaried T4 employee. The Respondent father was a self-employed real estate agent operating through a personal corporation. The central issue before the court was the proper determination of each party’s income from 2021 to 2025 under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.  

A key issue concerning the applicant involved whether employer-provided benefits, including a company vehicle, gas card, insurance, and phone payments, should be added to her income. While the court acknowledged that such benefits could constitute income for support purposes, it declined to impute additional income because the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence to quantify their value or their personal use. The court emphasized that income determinations cannot be based on speculation.  

More significantly, the court considered whether a $20,000 general damages payment the applicant received from a workplace settlement involving constructive dismissal and sexual harassment allegations should count as income. Although the payment may not have been taxable under the Income Tax Act, the court held that “income” under the Child Support Guidelines is broader than taxable income. Because the applicant used the settlement funds for living expenses and purchases benefiting herself and the child, the court included the amount as income for support purposes in 2025.  

The respondent’s income raised more complex issues due to his self-employment. The court accepted expert accounting evidence regarding his business income and discretionary expenses. It declined to include temporary RRSP withdrawals as income because the funds were quickly re-deposited and were not used for living expenses, demonstrating that they did not meaningfully increase his financial capacity.  

One of the most notable aspects of the case involved “foregone commissions.” The respondent had represented his new wife in a home purchase and rental transaction but chose not to charge commission. The court held that because he voluntarily waived commissions he was capable of earning, and because the economic benefit flowed to his new wife rather than the child, those commissions should be imputed as income for child support purposes. The court added approximately $41,850 to his 2024 income and $1,317 to his 2025 income.  

The court ultimately determined the parties’ annual incomes for support purposes and ordered child support on a straight set-off basis given the shared parenting arrangement. It also ordered annual income disclosure, proportional sharing of section 7 expenses, and life insurance as security for support obligations.  

Analysis

This decision demonstrates the broad and flexible approach courts take when determining “income” under the Federal Child Support Guidelines. Rather than relying strictly on tax definitions, the court focused on actual financial capacity and the principle that children should benefit from the financial means available to both parents.  

The treatment of the applicant’s settlement funds illustrates this approach clearly. Even though the damages payment may not have been taxable, the court emphasized that the relevant question was whether the payment enhanced the recipient’s economic circumstances. This reflects the child-centered purpose of the Guidelines and reinforces that support calculations are driven by substance over form.

The decision is also significant for its treatment of forgone commissions. By imputing income based on earnings the respondent intentionally declined to receive, the court reinforced the principle that parents are expected to earn what they are reasonably capable of earning. The ruling signals that self-employed or commission-based parents cannot voluntarily reduce income in ways that indirectly benefit others while limiting support obligations to their children.  

Finally, the case highlights the importance of evidence in family law litigation. The respondent’s claims regarding employment benefits failed largely because they lacked supporting documentation and detailed calculations, whereas the expert accounting evidence regarding business income was accepted because it was supported by records and professional analysis. Overall, the decision reflects a practical and evidence-driven approach to child support determinations, particularly in cases involving self-employment and nontraditional forms of compensation.

At Shankar Law, we are happy to help you with complex family matters, including analytical issues in family law. We work throughout Ontario. Now with four locations to better serve you in Owen Sound, Port Elgin, Wiarton, and Kincardine. Professional legal support is just a call away at 226-256-8054. Our Family Law team is skilled, thorough, and reliable, making the complex seem simple.

Providing clients with effective legal services in Grey, Bruce, and Huron Counties. Taking the first step can lead to a fair resolution and peace of mind.