What is the test for imputing income on behalf of a spouse who is an under-employed spouse?

[95] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Drygala v. Pauli [4] set out the following three questions which should be answered by a court in considering a request to impute income: 1. Is the party intentionally under-employed or unemployed? 2. If so, is the intentional under-employment or unemployment required by virtue of his reasonable educational needs, the needs of the child of the marriage or reasonable health needs? 3. If not, what income is appropriately imputed?

[96] In Drygala v. Pauli, supra, the court interpreted section 19(1)(a) by stating that “intentionally” means a voluntary act and that a parent is intentionally under-employed if that parent choose to earn less than he or she is capable of earning. The court does not need to find a specific intent to evade child support obligations or bad faith.