When two parties have dependant children, they may be required to pay special or extraordinary expenses alongside their basic monthly child support obligations. The definition of these expenses are outlined in Section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.
Section 7 reads that in an order for the support of a child, the court may, on request of either parent or spouse provide for an amount to cover all or any portion of applicable expenses. What is qualified as a "section 7 expense" is determined based on various considerations. The court will take into account the necessity of the expense in relation to the child's best interests, the reasonableness of the expense in relation to the means of the parents or spouses, and those of the child with respect to the family's spending pattern before separation. Applicable expenses may include child care expenses, health-related expenses such as braces, expenses for post-secondary education (tuition, meal plans, textbooks) and extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education or extracurricular activities.
The Guidelines lay out what falls under applicable extraordinary expenses. Extraordinary expenses are expenses that exceed the amount that the requesting parent or spouse could reasonably cover, while taking into account the parent or spouse's income and the amount that would be received for child support. The court also considers expenses to be extraordinary by considering various other factors including but not limited to: the nature and number of the educational programs and extracurricular activities, and any special needs and talents of the child.
Determining a Section 7 Expense
A common question is what exactly may be considered an extraordinary section 7 expense. As discussed above, the court will consider many factors and it is not just the expense alone that is considered. For example, in the case of Craig v. Niro, 2022 ONSC 5178, the question of whether the daughter's hockey equipment and the son's moving expenses were an extraordinary expense were considered.
The court considered the factors outlined in the Guidelines and determined that the daughter's hockey equipment was not an extraordinary expense but the son's moving expenses were considered to be an expense under section 7. The parents in this case had an order in place that the mother pay 36% and the father pay 64% of section 7 expenses. The mother and daughter contributed to the daughter's hockey equipment. Considering these contributions and the father's income, the remaining hockey expenses were considered modest and within the amount of child support set off against the amount that the father would otherwise pay. He was not required to make additional contributions towards hockey. The son's moving expense; however, was determined to be a post-secondary education expense and therefore a section 7. To qualify as a post-secondary education expense, the expense must be sufficiently connected to the program of study. In this case it was concluded that the expenses associated with the purchase of furniture, appliances, food, toiletries and even "shower flip flops" are properly characterized as post-secondary education expenses for a temporary residence being shared while at university. Even the hotel room and restaurant meals while a student's belongings are being moved into a temporary residence was deemed to be covered as a section 7 expense.
In certain circumstances, an adult child will be responsible for contributing toward section 7 expenses, which is discussed further below. However, in Craig v. Niro, many of the expenses were incurred because the mother refused to assist with the physical move of the son's items that did not fit in the father's vehicle. As a result, it was found to be unfair that the son be required to contribute to these moving expenses. Whether or not an expense is found to be extraordinary and how section 7 is inferred is discretionary to the courts. It is helpful to consult with a family law lawyer about any questions related to section 7 expenses as every situation varies.
Children's Contributions to Section 7 Expenses
The case of Lewi v. Lewi, 2006 CanLII 15446 (ON CA) raised the issue of children's contributions to post-secondary education expenses, specifically, adult children who attend post-secondary studies. Whether the parents should be solely responsible for their children's post-secondary education when the child has a job or in the case of Lewi, had significant capital assets as a result of gifts from their grandfather, was discussed extensively. The Court of Appeal in Lewi considered that as a general rule, adult children should be required to make reasonable and meaningful contributions toward post-secondary education expenses. The amount they should contribute is dependent on the circumstances and will consider the means of both the parents and the children. In this specific case, one of the sons attended post-secondary studies out of town and at a much greater cost than his brother, which therefore required a greater contribution from him.
Ultimately, the determination of section 7 contributions and extraordinary expenses are extremely fact-dependent. Should you require more information regarding section 7 expenses and/or family law-related topics, please contact our family law department.
This blog was co-authored by Articling Student, Samantha Lawr
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.