In family law, determining a payor’s true income is crucial for fair child and spousal support calculations. But what happens when a person reports very little income on paper while their lifestyle tells a completely different story? Courts in Ontario have increasingly relied on lifestyle markers to bridge this gap and impute income assigning a higher income figure than what the payor claims when the evidence suggests undisclosed or underreported earnings.
What Are Lifestyle Markers?
Lifestyle markers are not direct proof of income. Instead, they are indicators of financial capacity—clues that show a person may be living beyond their stated means. Courts use these markers to draw reasonable inferences about a payor’s real financial situation, particularly when traditional documentation is incomplete, inconsistent, or unreliable.
The Ontario Court of Appeal made this clear in Bak v. Dobell (2007 CFLG para. 26,238), emphasizing that lifestyle alone is not a standalone ground for imputing income. However, it can be powerful evidentiary support when a person’s lifestyle contradicts their reported income.
When Lifestyle Doesn’t Match Reported Income
If someone claims to earn very little but lives comfortably—or even luxuriously—the court may infer there is more money coming in than disclosed. This inconsistency triggers scrutiny and can result in income being imputed based on the lifestyle observed, as seen in O.P. v. J.R. (2019) and Thauvette v. McGregor (2021).
⦁ Courts have examined lifestyle factors such as:
⦁ Expensive vehicles or luxury goods
⦁ International vacations
⦁ High-end dining or entertainment
⦁ Private school tuition
⦁ Cash-based purchases without clear income sources
⦁ These spending patterns speak volumes—especially when financial disclosure says otherwise.
⦁ Where Courts Find Lifestyle Evidence
Courts don’t guess they look for tangible proof. Evidence may come from:
• Bank and credit card statements
Show patterns of spending inconsistent with reported income.
• Cash transactions
Unusual cash deposits or payments made in even denominations ($100, $500) can suggest unreported cash income.
• Receipts and invoices
Tracking spending over time paints a financial picture.
• Social media
Luxury vacations, designer items, and high-end activities posted online often contradict claims of financial hardship. Courts have increasingly accepted these posts as relevant evidence.
This approach has been validated in multiple cases, including Colivas v. Colivas (2017) and Cadden v. Rombough (2019).
When Lifestyle Becomes the Best Evidence Available
In some situations especially with self-employed payors or individuals operating largely in cash—there may be no reliable paper trail. When tax returns and statements don’t align with the person’s expenses or standard of living, courts may rely heavily on lifestyle analysis.
Cases such as Reyes v. Rollo (2001) and McLean v. Vassel (2004) highlight that courts are prepared to draw adverse inferences when a payor’s financial disclosure lacks credibility.
Final Thoughts
Lifestyle is not a conclusive measure of income, but it is a critical lens courts apply when numbers don’t add up. Whether through luxury spending, unexplained cash transactions, or social media displays that contradict reported earnings, a payor’s lifestyle can reveal income that hasn’t made its way onto official forms.
