Special or Extraordinary Expenses
| Jurisdiction | Canada |
| Pages | 278-334 |
| Author | Julien D. Payne,Marilyn A. Payne |
278
Special or Extraordinary Expenses
A. DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN ORDINARY AND EXTRAORDINARY
EXPENSES; DEFINITION OF EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES
e court may, on the request of either spouse or former spouse,1 provide in a child support
order for the payment of any of the following expenses, or any portion of those expenses, tak-
ing into account the necessity of the expense in relation to the child’s best interests and the
reasonableness of the expense, having regard to the means of the spouses or former spouses
and those of the child and to the family’s spending pattern prior to the separation:
1) child care expenses incurred as a result of the employment, illness, disability, or education
or training for employment of the spouse who exercises the majority of parenting time;
2) that portion of the medical and dental insurance premiums attributable to the child;
3) health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100 annually per
illness or event, including orthodontic treatment, professional counselling provided by a
psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist or any other person, physiotherapy, occupational
therapy, speech therapy, prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses, and contact lenses;
4) extraordinary expenses for primar y or secondary school education or for any educational
programs that meet the child’s particular needs;
5) expenses for post-secondary education; and
6) extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities.2
A reference to “special or extraordinary expenses” appears in the marginal note to sec-
tion7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines but the term “special expenses” does not appear
in the body of section 7. Section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines gives the court the
discretion to order payment of an amount over and above the regular table amount. However,
Middleton v MacPherson, [] AJ No (QB).
Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/-, s (). For a useful discussion of s expenses, see Clarke
v Clarke, BCSC at paras –, cited in Sea v He, BCSC ; Cervi v McDonald,
ONSC .
Child Support Guidelines 2024.indb 278Child Support Guidelines 2024.indb 278 11/18/2024 10:46:08 AM11/18/2024 10:46:08 AM
Special or Extraordinary E xpenses 279
in order to qualify for a section 7 order, the expenses must be proven to be “special” or “extra-
ordinary” in some way. is is because the basic table amounts of child support are designed
to cover all the “ordinary” costs of raising a child. Food, shelter, clothing, and other neces-
sities are all ordinary, as are many educational, extracurricular, and recreational expenses.3
Recreational sports and other similar extracurricular activities such as dance lessons , com-
munity sports leagues, ski trips, etc., will not generally qualify as special or extraordinary
expenses unless the child’s participation goes beyond that of an ordinary child.4 Special,” as
distinct from “extraordinary,” expenses are generally added more or less as a routine matter,5
provided that they are not unreasonably high,6 but controversy can arise with respect to the
“necessity” for a child to be engaged in extracurricular activities.7
Section 7 of the Guidelines is not presumptive; it indicates that a court may on either
spouse’s request8 provide for an amount to cover all or any portion of the expenses enumer-
ated, which expenses may be estimated taking into account the necessity of the expenses in
relation to the child’s best interests and the reasonableness of the expenses in relation to means
of the spouses and those of the child and to the family’s spending pattern prior to separation.9
e onus is on the parent seeking a contribution to plead and prove the expense.Although
expenses may be estimated, there must be some cogent evidence of a particular expense.10
Failing to consult is generally treated as a relevant — sometimes decisive — factor in gauging
a parent’s exposure to section 7 expenses.11
An order for special or extraordinary expenses under section 7 of the Federal Child Sup-
port Guidelines is not premised on a prior or concurrent order for the payment of the basic
table amount of child support.12 A non-primary residential parent may seek contribution to
a child’s extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities and the amount ordered may
be set-o against the table amount of child support payable by the non-primary residential
parent.13 While ordering a pro rata sharing of all of the allowable expenses under section 7
of the Guidelines, a court may order that the mother shall assume the primary responsibility
for dealing with certain designated expenditures while the father shall assume the primary
responsibility for the others.14
Clarke v Clarke, BCSC at paras –, Baird J; TMR v SMS, NBQB at para ; MSD
obo NC v AL, NBQB .
Santelli v Trinetti, BCCA at para , citing Dorey v Havens, BCCA at para; Ber-
nardin v Bernardin, BCSC .
MSD obo NC v AL, NB QB ; Slade v Slade, [] NJ No (CA); VC v JDB, NSSC . Com-
pare Olaitan v MacDougall, PECA .
Sharf v Sharf, [] OJ No (SCJ).
MD v PD, NBKB ; Russell v Russell, NSSC .
See H v J, NBQB (application by uncle and grandmother).
Carruthers v Carruthers, BCSC ; Cook v Cook, NBQB citing H v C, NBQB ;
Bradley v Brooks, NLTD(F) ; Vantomme v Vantomme, SKQB .
Howe v Lorette, NBQB at para , Wooder J; see also MR v JR, NBCA ; MD v PD,
NBKB .
Joe-Joe v Joe- Joe, ABKB at para , Lema J; see also Meier v Sirman, ABKB at para ,
citing AE v AE, ONSC .
Whitley v W hitley, [] BCJ No (SC); Davis v Davis, [] BCJ No (SC); but see contra
Hannigan v Hannigan, [] BCJ No (SC).
Van Bilsen v Van Bilsen, [] OJ No (SCJ).
Fisher v Fisher, [] OJ No (SCJ).
Child Support Guidelines 2024.indb 279Child Support Guidelines 2024.indb 279 11/18/2024 10:46:08 AM11/18/2024 10:46:08 AM
280 ,
Although child care expenses, medical and dental insurance, health-related expenses,
and post-secondary educational expenses need not be extraordinar y under sections 7(1)(a),
(b), (c), and (e) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines in order to warrant a judicial alloca-
tion, expenses for primary or secondary school e ducation or for any educational programs
that meet a child’s particular needs under section 7(1)(d) of the Guidelines and expenses for
extracurricular activities under section 7(1)(f ) of the Guidelines must be extraordinary in
order to be allowable.15 All expenses, however, must meet the tests of necessity and reason-
ableness set out in section 7(1) of the Guidelines.16 e onus falls on the applicant who seeks
special or extraordinary expenses under section 7 of the Fe deral Child Support Guidelines to
prove that the expenses are necessary in relation to the child’s best interests and reasonable
having regard to the parental nancial circumstances.17
Eective 1 May 2006, section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines was amended
to promote clarity and consistency in the denition of “extraordinary expenses” under sec-
tions 7(1)(d) and 7(1)(f) of the Guidelines.18 Pursuant to section 7(1.1)(a) of the amende d
Guidelines, expenses are extraordinary if they exceed an amount that the requesting parent
can reasonably cover. In determining whether the expenses are reasonably aordable, the
court must consider the income of the requesting spouse and any child support received.
Where section 7(1.1)(a) is inapplicable in that the expenses do not exceed an amount that the
requesting spouse can reasonably cover, the court will determine whether the expenses are
extraordinary by taking into account the following ve factors:
• the amount of the expense in relation to the income of the spouse requesting the
amount, including the amount of child support received;
• the nature and number of the educational programs and extracurricular activities;
• any special needs and talents of the child or children;
• the overall cost of the programs and activities; and
• any other similar factor that the court considers relevant.19
ese factors indicate the signicant discretion reposed in the court of rst instance to
determine what is or is not an extraordinary expense based on the evidence before the court.
Bodine-Shah v Shah, BCCA ; KKS v JSS, BCSC ; WL v RW, [] NBJ No (QB);
Hiscock v Hiscock, NLTD(F) ; Bocaneala v Bocaneala, NSSC ; Hoover v Hoover, []
NWTJ No (SC); MacKinnon v MacKinnon, [] OJ No (CA); Titova v Titov, ONCA ;
Beisel v Henderson, [] SJ No (QB); MDL v CR, SKCA .
MA v FHA, BCSC ; KKS v JSS, BCSC ; NSC v D C, NBQB ; Bocaneala v Bocan-
eala, NSSC ; Williams v Steinwand, NWTSC ; Titova v Titov, ONCA ; Zigiris v
Foustanellas, ONSC ; Beisel v Henderson, [] SJ No (QB); JC v SAW, YKSC .
Hamilton v Hamilton, BCSC ; MD v PD, NBKB ; Abbott v Crane, [] NJ No
(UFC); Mastin v Mastin, NSSC ; Clark v Clark, ONSC ; Olaitan v MacDougall,
PECA ; Carmichael v Douglas, [] SJ No (QB); MDL v CR, SKCA .
S OR/-, s ( November ), Canada Gazette, Vol , No ( December ). And
see FJN v JK, ABCA at para , leave to appeal to SCC denied CanLII (SCC); A M
v GM, BCSC ; LKS v DMCT, NSCA . As to ongoing judicial uncertainty and lack of
consistency, see Simpson v Trowsdale, PESCTD , MacDonald J.
CJT v GAT, ABQB ; LAM v SCM, BCSC ; Beruschi v Muller, BCSC ; LKS v
DMCT, NSCA ; Hardayal v Asrula, ONSC ; MDL v CR, SKCA ; JC v S AW,
YKSC .
Child Support Guidelines 2024.indb 280Child Support Guidelines 2024.indb 280 11/18/2024 10:46:08 AM11/18/2024 10:46:08 AM
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations