If you’re separated and one person’s income drops, sometimes dramatically, financial support (child support and spousal support) disputes often turn on a simple question: Are they earning less because they truly have to, or because they chose to?

The Court of Appeal recently squarely addressed a long‑debated question in imputation of income cases: who bears the burden of proof when a payor says their reduced income is justified by parenting, educational, or health needs?

In S.A. v. Z.R., 2026 BCCA 19., the British Columbia Court of Appeal clarified that once there’s good evidence that a person is earning less than they reasonably could, it becomes their job to prove why that lower income should be accepted.

For family law practitioners and litigants alike, this decision is significant not because it radically changes the law, but because it clearly articulates and confirms how evidentiary burdens operate under s. 19(1)(a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

First, what does “imputing income” mean?

“Imputing income” is legal shorthand for this idea:

Even if someone says they earn $X, the court can treat them as if they earn more if the court finds they could earn more and they are not making reasonable efforts.

This can matter for both child support and spousal support, because support is generally based on income (or earning ability).

The rule comes from s. 19(1)(a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines. This section allows a court to impute income if a person is intentionally unemployed or under‑employed, unless the reduced work is required because of:

• the needs of a child, or
• the person’s reasonable education or health needs.

While courts have long applied a reasonableness test, looking at age, education, health, work history, and work availability, the allocation of the evidentiary burden had not been explicitly settled by the BC Court of Appeal before S.A. v. Z.R.

What happened in S.A. v. Z.R.?

The payor parent had a history of very high earnings before separation. After separation, his income dropped significantly. At trial, the judge found he was not working to his reasonable capacity and imputed income to him at $325,000 per year, less than his highest pre‑separation income, but more than he was earning at the time.

He argued the higher income was not realistic in Vancouver and that he needed to stay in Vancouver and limit travel because of the children’s needs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the imputation of income of the payor.

The big takeaway: Who has to prove what?

The appeal raised a focused legal question:

Once a prima facie case of intentional under‑employment is shown, does the party seeking imputation also have to prove that the payor’s reduced income is not required by the needs of the children or does the burden shift to the payor to justify the reduction?

The Court of Appeal’s Answer: A Shifting Evidentiary Burden

The Court of Appeal answered this question clearly and decisively.

Step One: The Applicant’s Initial Burden

The Court confirmed that:

• The party seeking the imputation of income bears the initial burden of establishing a factual basis for imputation, including that the payor is intentionally under‑employed or unemployed.
• This burden may be met through evidence such as a voluntary employment change coupled with a significant drop in income, often established through the payor’s own financial disclosure.

Step Two: The Burden Shifts

Importantly, the Court held that once intentional under‑employment is established, the evidentiary burden shifts:

• The payor must then demonstrate that their reduced income falls within one of the statutory exceptions, namely, that it is required by the needs of the children or by reasonable educational or health needs.

The Court found that the language “other than where…” in s. 19(1)(a) signals an exception, and it is the party relying on that exception who must justify it.

Why this matters (in everyday terms)

1. Clarifies an Unsettled Point in BC Law

While trial courts in British Columbia had often applied a shifting‑burden approach, S.A. v. Z.R. confirms that this approach is correct as a matter of law. This reduces uncertainty and promotes consistency in imputation cases. Decisions rendered by the Court of Appeal are binding on the Provincial and Supreme Courts of BC.

2. Limits “Bare Assertion” Defences

The Court emphasized that a payor cannot defeat imputation simply by asserting that:

• comparable jobs do not exist locally, or
• their income is reasonable within a particular market,

without cogent, persuasive evidence. In this case, the payor’s own testimony about job searches and market limitations was insufficient to discharge his burden.

3. Reinforces the Primacy of Child Support Obligations

The decision underscores a recurring theme in family law jurisprudence: personal lifestyle choices and career preferences do not trump a parent’s obligation to support their children according to capacity. Parenting responsibilities may justify some accommodation, but they do not automatically insulate a payor from imputation.

4. Strategic Implications for Counsel

For counsel acting:

For payors: success now clearly depends on evidence, not explanation. This may include expert labour market evidence, detailed job search records, or third‑party corroboration of child‑related or health‑related constraints.

For recipients: establishing a prima facie case of under‑employment, often through income history alone, can be sufficient to shift the evidentiary burden.

What This Means for Litigants: Practical Takeaways

This decision has concrete, practical consequences for how imputation of income disputes should be prepared and litigated.

For Payors Facing an Imputation Claim

• You must prove the exception. Once a significant post‑separation drop in income is established, it is no longer enough to say why you earn less. You must prove, with evidence, that the reduction is required by child‑related needs or by reasonable educational or health needs.
• Bare assertions will not suffice. General statements about market conditions, lack of local opportunities, or the need to avoid travel carry little weight without corroboration. Courts will expect objective evidence.
• Evidence should be concrete and third‑party where possible. Useful evidence may include detailed job‑search records, correspondence with recruiters, labour‑market or vocational evidence, medical evidence, or documentation demonstrating why parenting obligations genuinely constrain earning capacity.
• Parenting involvement is relevant, but not determinative. The Court reaffirmed that parenting responsibilities may justify some accommodation, but they do not automatically shield a payor from imputation if higher‑earning work remains realistically available.

For Recipients Seeking Imputation

• A prima facie case may be enough to shift the onus. Demonstrating a voluntary employment change and a significant income decline, often through the payor’s own disclosure, can be sufficient to move the evidentiary burden.
• You do not need to disprove every asserted justification. Once intentional under‑employment is shown, you are not required to lead extensive labour‑market evidence to negate hypothetical constraints raised by the payor.
• Focus on capacity, not intent. The inquiry is whether the payor is earning what they are capable of earning, not whether they intended to avoid support obligations.

For Both Parties

Early evidence strategy matters. Because the burden may shift mid‑analysis, parties should approach disclosure, expert evidence, and trial preparation with the burden framework clearly in mind from the outset.

Imputation is fact‑driven and discretionary. Trial judges retain broad discretion, and their findings will attract significant appellate deference when grounded in the evidence.

Takeaway

S.A. v. Z.R., 2026 BCCA 19, marks an important development in BC family law. It confirms that once a prima facie case of intentional under‑employment is made out, the onus rests on the payor to explain, through evidence, why their reduced income should be accepted under s. 19(1)(a).

In doing so, the Court endorsed a disciplined, evidence‑driven framework for income imputation that brings British Columbia into step with other Canadian appellate courts and offers much‑needed clarity for future cases.