SA v ZR: Spouse Must Prove Under-Employment in BC
In SA v ZR (2026 BCCA 19), the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld a finding that the husband’s income should be imputed at $325,000, rejecting his contention that the Vancouver labour market and his desire to remain locally to help parent, prevented him from earning more.
The parties had three children, two of whom were described as being “in crisis” and posing serious parenting challenges since the separation. Before the split, the husband occupied high-level marketing positions, often abroad, which required extensive travel and led the family to reside in Europe for several years. In the four years preceding the separation, his income fluctuated between $289,856 and $540,603, with the upper figures reflecting one-time severance or bonus payments. At trial, the husband’s reported annual earnings were over $100,000 less than what was imputed--- $204,000.
The Court accepted that the husband’s testimony about his own marketing expertise and the fact that he was a desirable candidate who could reasonably expect workplace flexibility. Evidence indicated he could have secured a role permitting remote work and periodic travel. The trial judge was not compelled to accept the husband’s uncorroborated claim that comparable positions “don’t exist in Canada anymore” or that his prior earnings fell within the “Canadian salary band.”
A central issue in the case was who bears the evidentiary burden of proof to establish under employment. Drawing on an Alberta decision—Peters v Atchooay, 2022 ABCA 347—the Court confirmed that once it is shown a payor spouse has chosen to work below full capacity, the onus shifts to the payor spouse to justify that choice.
The Court emphasized that the wife was not required to produce evidence of specific Vancouver job postings or local employment conditions. Instead, the burden remained on the husband to prove his reduced working capacity was necessary to meet the children’s needs. On the record before it, the trial judge was entitled to reject the husband's assertion that he was already working to his full potential.
Contact us today for tailored legal guidance based on your circumstances. Our team at Mint Legal is ready to help!
