BC Court Includes Investment Income in Child Support Calculation

Case Overview

Stefanov v. Stefanov, 2026 BCSC 1548 concerned an interim family-law application to vary an earlier order made without notice to the respondent. The parties were separated parents of three children. They agreed on many changes involving parental responsibilities, parenting time, and conduct between the parents.

The main dispute was how much income should be attributed to the respondent, Miki Maxsim Stefanov, for child-support purposes. Mr. Stefanov reported very little income on his recent tax returns, but accepted that those amounts did not fairly reflect his ability to earn income.

Justice Loo decided that Mr. Stefanov should be treated as earning:

• $60,000 per year in employment income; and
• $14,000 per year in investment income.

His total income for child-support purposes was therefore set at $74,000 per year.

The Court also set the effective date for retroactive child support at December 7, 2023, the date Mr. Stefanov was served with the Notice of Family Claim.

Why This Decision is Important

This decision illustrates how the Court may calculate income for child support when a parent’s reported income does not reflect their actual financial capacity.

Important points include:

• Income imputation requires evidence, not speculation. A court cannot simply choose an income amount without a reasonable evidentiary foundation.
• Past employment history can support income imputation. Mr. Stefanov’s previous earnings in sales helped establish that he could reasonably earn more than the minimal income reported on his tax returns.
• Investment income may be imputed from inherited or sale proceeds. Even where a parent receives a one-time capital amount, the Court may attribute a reasonable return on money that could remain invested.
• The Court may separate employment income from investment income. These two sources of financial ability were assessed independently.
• A parent is not automatically expected to invest all capital. The Court accepted that a reasonable portion of the sale proceeds could be used for living expenses and debt payments.
• Travel alone does not prove hidden income. Mr. Stefanov’s frequent post-separation travel was not used to increase his imputed income because there was no reliable evidence that he paid for the flights or accommodations.
• Retroactive support begins from effective notice. The Court found that earlier communications did not clearly demand child support, while service of the court claim did provide effective notice.
• Credits for payments can be addressed later. Because the evidence about payments made by Mr. Stefanov was disputed and complicated, the Court left open his ability to seek credits at a later hearing.

Case Details

Court and Citation

• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia
• Citation: Stefanov v. Stefanov, 2026 BCSC 1548
• Date of judgment: August 14, 2026
• Registry: New Westminster
• Judge: The Honourable Justice Loo
• Docket: E68942

Parties

• Claimant: May Marina Stefanov, also known as May Marina Slatina
• Respondent: Miki Maxsim Stefanov

Family Background

The parties married in Israel on August 7, 2006. They moved to Canada around that time, lived in Edmonton until 2010, and then moved to British Columbia.

They separated on December 15, 2022. They have three children:

• William Raphael Stefanov, born August 1, 2008;
• Aaron Stefanov, born August 10, 2011; and
• Odelia Stefanov, born July 25, 2014.

At the time of the decision, William was 18, Aaron was 15, and Odelia was 12.

Earlier Court Order

On July 29, 2025, Justice Underhill made an order under the Family Law Act. The order was made without notice to Mr. Stefanov because he had not yet filed a Response to Family Claim, even though he had been served with the Notice of Family Claim on December 7, 2023.

The earlier order:

• gave Ms. Stefanov all parental responsibilities;
• gave Ms. Stefanov all parenting time;
• imputed $100,000 of annual income to Mr. Stefanov for child-support purposes; and
• addressed child support and special or extraordinary expenses.

Mr. Stefanov later filed his Response to Family Claim and applied to vary the earlier order.

Main Issues

The Court considered:

1. Whether Mr. Stefanov’s income should continue to be imputed;
2. The appropriate amount of employment income;
3. Whether investment income should also be included;
4. How parental responsibilities should be shared;
5. How parenting time should be arranged;
6. How special or extraordinary expenses should be divided;
7. The effective date of retroactive child support;
8. Whether Mr. Stefanov should receive credits for payments he said he had made; and
9. Appropriate conduct orders between the parents.

Imputation of Employment Income

Mr. Stefanov had worked for Relaxus beginning in 2010. He progressed from an office position to work as a brand manager and sales representative, with involvement in product development.

He acknowledged that, in 2015, his last employment with an arm’s-length company, he earned approximately $80,000 per year.

He argued that the sales market had changed because of online shopping and that sales representatives no longer earned what they had earned in 2015. However, he provided no independent evidence supporting that claim.

Mr. Stefanov also operated or participated in businesses. In 2017, his company earned significant profits from selling fidget spinners, and his share of the income exceeded $100,000. Those businesses later failed.

From July 2023 to July 2024, he earned approximately $60,000 while working for a former business partner. He said that part of the amount related to compensation for inventory from an earlier business arrangement and that the job was temporary.

The Court also considered a job advertisement for an entry-level sales position paying $30,000 to $40,000 per year. Justice Loo gave the advertisement limited weight because it was aimed at early-career workers and did not reflect Mr. Stefanov’s experience.

The Court concluded that the evidence supported imputed employment income of $60,000 per year, rather than the $100,000 used in the earlier order.

Imputation of Investment Income

Mr. Stefanov inherited property in Israel and sold it after separation for approximately $700,000.

He used some of the proceeds for living expenses and personal loans. He then made two loans connected with a friend’s real-estate venture:

• US$250,000 at 12% interest; and
• US$160,000 at 12% interest.

By April 2025, the original US$410,000 had increased to approximately US$446,000. Mr. Stefanov then loaned that amount under a third agreement at 7.5% interest for one year.

Mr. Stefanov said he received only US$2,704.48 in interest from the third loan. The Court found that amount difficult to reconcile with the written agreement, which appeared to provide for more than US$33,000 in interest over the year.

Justice Loo did not accept that Mr. Stefanov had received less than US$3,000 in interest. However, the Court also found that there was not enough evidence to establish that similar investment opportunities would continue after the third loan ended.

The Court decided it was reasonable for Mr. Stefanov to retain at least $400,000 CAD for investment purposes. If invested in a guaranteed investment certificate, the Court estimated that the money could produce a return of approximately 3% to 4%.

Using an assumed return of 3.5%, the Court imputed $14,000 per year in investment income.

Total Income for Child Support

The Court combined the two amounts:

• Employment income: $60,000
• Investment income: $14,000
• Total imputed income: $74,000

Going forward, child support was to be calculated using annual income of $74,000 for Mr. Stefanov.

Parenting Responsibilities

The parties agreed to share decision-making responsibility using a structure described as the Joyce model.

Under the arrangement:

• Each parent must discuss significant decisions concerning a child with the other parent.
• Both parents must try to reach an agreement.
• If Mr. Stefanov asks Ms. Stefanov for information about a significant decision, she must respond within 48 hours.
• Mr. Stefanov must provide his position within 48 hours after receiving the information.
• If the parents cannot agree, or if Mr. Stefanov does not respond within the required time, Ms. Stefanov may make the decision.
• Mr. Stefanov may apply to the Court for directions if he believes a decision is contrary to a child’s best interests.
• Both parents may obtain information directly from schools, counsellors, medical professionals, and other caregivers.

Parenting Time

The parties agreed that parenting time would be ad hoc and based on the children’s wishes.

The Court understood this to mean that both parents wished to spend time with the children, but that the children would determine when and for how long they stayed with either parent, either individually or together.

Special or Extraordinary Expenses

The earlier order required special or extraordinary expenses to be shared based on the parents’ incomes.

The Court confirmed that the relevant incomes would be:

• Mr. Stefanov: $74,000
• Ms. Stefanov: $53,102

The parties’ respective percentages would therefore be calculated using those figures.

Retroactive Child Support

The Court considered when Mr. Stefanov first received effective notice that Ms. Stefanov was seeking child support.

Ms. Stefanov relied on communications from October 31, 2023 onward. Mr. Stefanov argued that effective notice began when he was served with the Notice of Family Claim on December 7, 2023.

Justice Loo found that the October and November communications did not amount to an effective demand for child support. The Court therefore set December 7, 2023 as the start date for retroactive child support.

Mr. Stefanov argued that he should receive credits for amounts he paid for the children or the family after separation. Because the evidence was conflicting and complicated, the Court ordered that retroactive support would be payable without prejudice to his later claim for credits.

In practical terms, this means the issue of credits was not finally decided.

Conduct Orders

The parties agreed to mutual conduct orders. Neither parent may:

• take steps that negatively affect the other parent’s living situation or livelihood;
• discuss inappropriate adult, court, or legal matters with the children; or
• blame, criticize, or disparage the other parent to the children.

Costs

The Court ordered that costs would be in the cause. This means the issue of costs was left to be dealt with later, usually as part of the final outcome of the broader family-law case.

Outcome

The Court varied the earlier order as follows:

• Mr. Stefanov’s income for child support was set at $74,000 per year.
  • $60,000 was attributed to employment.
  • $14,000 was attributed to investment income.
• The previous imputed income of $100,000 was reduced.
• The parents were granted shared decision-making responsibility under the agreed Joyce-model structure.
• Parenting time was made ad hoc and guided by the children’s wishes.
• Special or extraordinary expenses were to be shared using incomes of $74,000 for Mr. Stefanov and $53,102 for Ms. Stefanov.
• Retroactive child support was payable from December 7, 2023.
• Mr. Stefanov could later argue that certain payments should be credited against retroactive child support.
• Mutual conduct restrictions were ordered.
• Costs were in the cause.

Key Takeaways

• A parent’s tax-return income is not always the final measure of income for child support. The Court may consider employment history, skills, experience, available work, business activity, and access to capital.
• Income imputation must be supported by evidence. Courts may use common sense, but they cannot base the result only on assumptions or speculation.
• Past earnings can be important. Mr. Stefanov’s prior $80,000 sales income and later $60,000 temporary income supported an imputed employment income of $60,000.
• The Court does not necessarily use the highest historical income. Although Mr. Stefanov had earned more than $100,000 from a successful business venture, the Court did not treat that temporary business success as a continuing annual income.
• Investment income can be included after an inheritance or property sale. A parent may be expected to earn a reasonable return on a significant amount of capital that remains available for investment.
• Capital does not always have to be treated as income. The Court accepted that some sale proceeds could reasonably be used for living expenses and debt payments.
• The likely future return matters. Because there was no evidence that Mr. Stefanov’s high-interest private lending opportunities would continue, the Court used a more conservative 3.5% investment return.
• Frequent travel does not automatically show undisclosed income. Evidence is needed to show who paid for travel and accommodation or how the travel demonstrates an ability to earn more.
• Service of a court claim can establish effective notice of a child-support claim. Earlier communications must clearly communicate a demand for support to start the retroactive period.
• Disputed payment credits may be dealt with later. A parent who claims to have paid family expenses should keep clear records, including dates, amounts, recipients, and the purpose of each payment.
• Shared parenting responsibility can include strict response deadlines. The agreed arrangement required each parent to respond to significant-decision communications within 48 hours.
• Parenting arrangements may give children a substantial role in scheduling. Here, parenting time was left to the children’s wishes rather than set out in a fixed schedule.
• Conduct orders protect children from adult conflict. Parents were prohibited from discussing legal matters with the children or criticizing the other parent in front of them.

References:

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2026/2026bcsc1548/2026bcsc1548.html

The Legal Review Process by Spectrum Family Law

• Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal concerns, please consult with one of our legal professionals.
• Spectrum strives for high-quality, legally verified content.
• Content is meticulously researched and reviewed by our legal writers/proofers (usually local law students).
• Details are sourced from trusted legal sources like the Family Law Act.
• Each article is edited for accuracy, clarity, and relevance.
• If you find any incorrect information or discrepancies in legal facts, we kindly ask that you contact us with a correction to ensure accuracy.