In Olah v. Olah, the Court dealt, once again, with the question of whether or not to impute additional income to the payor of Child Support. In this case, the father was employed as a dealer in a casino. He worked 26 hours per week and earned an annual income of $32,000.00. Previously, the father worked as a bricklayer and earned up to $55,000.00 per annum in that capacity. The mother argued that, based on his previous earnings as a bricklayer, the Court should impute him additional income. In response, the father argued that he was unable to obtain work as a bricklayer and, therefore, he was forced to work as a dealer at a significant decrease in salary. While the father’s claim seemed legitimate in light of the well known shortage of work in the construction industry, he failed to lead conclusive evidence of the lack of jobs available for bricklayers. However, the Court noted that the father had been earning an income of $32,000.00 for a number of years and, as such, increasing his income significantly would yield an obligation in retroactive Child Support that would far exceed his ability to pay same. The Court imputed an additional income of $5,000.00 per annum to the father on this basis. Interestingly, the Court did not question whether or not the father was able to work more hours at the Casino in order to increase his income.