Written by: Naa Lansana
Payors of child support are often surprised to learn that, in addition to table child support payments, they are also expected to contribute to special and extraordinary expenses. Section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, along with its near-mirror counterpart, section 7 of the Ontario Child Support Guidelines, defines these special or extraordinary expenses. These expenses must be estimable, and a court may order them, on either party’s request, after considering the necessity of the expense in relation to the child’s best interests, the reasonableness of the expense given the means of the payors and child, and the family’s spending patterns prior to the parties’ separation. These costs are generally shared in proportion to the parties’ incomes, after subtracting any contributions from the child. They include, among others, expenses related to childcare, health expenses exceeding $100 per annum, extraordinary expenses related to primary and secondary education, and extracurricular activities. Given the significant room for subjectivity, it is unsurprising that this area frequently leads to disputes.
Disagreements often arise regarding the necessity of an expense. What one parent considers essential for a child’s best interest, another may view as unnecessary. For example, if a child already participates in one or two activities, additional activities may be deemed superfluous, or even counterproductive, due to concerns about the child becoming overly exhausted or having too little unstructured time. Furthermore, reaching a consensus on what constitutes the “best interest of the child” can itself be challenging. Even when parties agree on the necessity of an expense, defining its scope can present difficulties. For instance, while parents may agree to enroll a child in a particular sport, they might disagree on whether only the fees should be shared, or if the costs of equipment and attire necessary for participation should also be divided.
Even if the necessity of an expense is established, its reasonableness, considering the parties’ means and historical spending patterns, remains a crucial factor. An expense that was reasonable prior to separation may no longer be so due to changed financial circumstances post-separation. Such issues can lead to contention. For example, one parent may deem private education necessary for a child, while the other may agree it would be beneficial but argue it is not within the parties’ means.
Further, as mentioned, Section 7 expenses are generally contributed to by each party based on their proportionate income share. This necessitates ongoing financial disclosure from each party, which is not always provided and can become problematic, particularly if there are disagreements about whether items such as tax credits should be included in a party’s income before determining each party’s proportional share.
The difficulties outlined above are by no means an exhaustive rendering of all the problems parties may encounter when addressing Section 7 expenses. While there may not be an easy solution to every facet of these challenges, open communication between parties may help mitigate some of these conflicts.
