Evidence that a payor voluntarily retired in order to frustrate a support order is clearly an important fact militating against a finding of a material change. In such a case, it would be open to the court to impute income to the payor up to an amount he would have earned if he had not retired: Teeple v. Teeple, [1999] O.J. No. 3565 (C.A.).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.