Special or extraordinary expenses
| Author | Julien D. Payne - Marilyn A. Payne |
| Pages | 249-302 |
CHAPTER 5
SPECIAL OR EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES
A. DISTINCTIONS BET WEEN ODINAY AND EXTAODINAY
EXPENSES; DEFINITION OF EXTAODINAY EXPENSES
e court may, on the request of either spouse or former spouse, provide in a child support
order for the payment of any of the following expenses, or any portion of those expenses ,
taking into account the necessit y of the expense in relation to the child’s best interests and
the reasonableness of the expense, having regard to the mea ns of the spouses or former
spouses and those of the child a nd to the family’s spending pattern prior to the sepa ration:
) child care expenses i ncurred as a result of the custodia l parent’s employment, illness,
disabil ity, or education or traini ng for employment;
) that portion of the medical and dental insu rance premiums attributable to the child;
) health-related expenses that exceed insura nce reimbursement by at least annu-
ally per illnes s or event, including orthodontic treatment, professional counsell ing pro-
vided by a psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist or any other person, physiotherapy,
occupational therapy, speech therapy, prescription drugs, hearing aids, gla sses, and
contact lenses;
) extraordina ry expenses for primar y or secondary school education or for any educa-
tional programs that meet t he child’s particu lar needs;
) expenses for post-secondary education; and
) extr aordinary expens es for extracurricu lar activities.
A reference to “special or extraordinary expense s” appears in the marginal note to sec-
tion of the Federal Child Support Guidelines but the term “special expen ses” does not
appear in the body of section . Section of the Federal Child Support Guidelines g ives
the court the discretion to order payment of an amount over and above the regular table
Middleton v. MacPherson, [] A.J. No. (Q.B.).
Federal Child Support Guidelin es, s. ().
CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES IN CANADA, 2017
amount. However, in order to qualify for a section order, the expenses must be proven
to be “special” or “extraordinary ” in some way. is is because the basic table amounts of
child support are designed to cover all the “ordinar y” costs of raising a child. Food, shelter,
clothing and other necessities are al l ordinary, as are many educational, extr acurricular
and recreationa l expenses. “Special,” as distinct f rom “extraordinary,” expenses are gener-
ally added more or less as a routine matter, provided that the y are not unreasonably h igh,
but controversy can arise with respect to t he “necessity” for a child to be engaged in extra-
curricular activities.
Section of the Guidelines is not presumptive; it indicates that a cour t may on either
spouse’s request provide for an amount to cover all or any por tion of the expenses enumer-
ated, which expenses may be estimated t aking into account the necessity of the expen ses
in relation to the child’s best interests and the reas onableness of the expenses in relation
to means of the spouses and those of the ch ild and to the family’s spending pattern prior
to separation . e onus is on the parent seeking a contribution to plead and prove the
expense.A lthough expenses may be estimated, t here must be some cogent evidence of a
particular expense.
An order for special or extraordinar y expenses under section of the Federal Child
Support Guidelines is not premised on a prior or concurrent order for the payment of the
basic table amount of child support. A non-prima ry residential parent may s eek contribu-
tion to a child’s extraordinar y expenses for extracurr icular activities and t he amount or-
dered may be set-off against the table amount of child support payable by the non-primary
residential pa rent. While ordering a pro rata sharing of al l of the allowable expenses under
section of the Guidelines, a court may order that the mother shal l assume the primary re-
sponsibility for dealing w ith certain designated expenditures whi le the father shall assume
the primary responsibi lity for the others.
Although child care ex penses, medical and dental in surance, health-related expenses
and post-secondary educational expenses need not be ext raordinary under sections ()(a),
(b), (c), and (e) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines in order to warra nt a judicial alloca-
tion, expens es for primary or seconda ry school education or for any educat ional programs
that meet a child’s particu lar needs under section ()(d) of the Guidelines and expenses for
extracurricu lar activities under section ()(f) of the Guidelines must be extraordi nary in
order to be allow able. All expenses, however, must meet the tests of necessity and reason-
C larke v. Clarke, BCSC at paras. –, Baird J.
Slade v. Sla de, [] N.J. No. (C.A.); V.C. v. J.D.B., NSSC . Compa re Olaitan v. MacDougall,
PECA .
Sharf v. Sharf, [] O.J. No. (S.C.J.).
Russell v. Russell, NSSC .
See H. v. J., NBQB (application by u ncle and grandmother).
Carr uthers 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 par a. , Wooder J.
Whitley v. W hitley, [] B.C.J. No. (S.C.); Davis v. Davis, [] B.C.J. No. (S.C.); but see contra
Hannigan v. Hannigan, [] B.C.J. No. (S.C.).
Van Bilsen v. Van Bilsen, [] O.J. No. (S.C.J.).
Fisher v. Fisher, [] O.J. No. (S.C.J.).
Bodine-Shah v. Shah, BCCA ; W.L. v. R .W., [] N.B.J. No. (Q.B.); Hiscock v. Hiscock,
NLTD(F) ; Bocaneala v. Bocaneala, NSSC ; Hoover v. Hoover, [] N.W.T.J. No. (S.C.);
Chapter 5: Special or Extraordinary Expenses
ableness set out in section () of the Guidelines. e onus falls on the applicant who seeks
special or extraordina ry expenses under section of the Federal Child Support Guideline s
to prove that the expenses are necessar y in relation to the child’s best interests and reason-
able having regard to the parental fina ncial circumstances.
Effective May , , section of the Federal Child Support Guidelines wa s amended
to promote clarity and consistency in t he definition of “extraordinary expenses” under
sections ()(d) and ()(f) of the Guidelines. Pursua nt to section (.)(a) of the amended
Guidelines, expenses are ex traordinary if they exceed an a mount that the requesting parent
can reasonably cover. In determining whether the expen ses are reasonably affordable, the
court must consider the income of the requesting spouse a nd any child support received.
Where section (.)(a) is inapplicable in that the expenses do not exceed an amount that
the requesting spouse can rea sonably cover, the court will determine whet her the expenses
are extraordinar y by taking into account the following five factors:
• the amount of the expense in relation to the income of the spouse requesti ng the
amount, including the amount of chi ld support received,
• the nature and number of the educational program s and extracurricular activities,
• any special needs and ta lents of the child or children,
• the overall cost of the programs a nd activities, and
• any other similar fact or that the court considers relevant.
ese factors indicate the significa nt discretion reposed in the court of first i nstance
to determine what is or is not an extraordi nary expense based on the evidence before the
court. An import ant consideration is the total income of the spouse in receipt of child
support but there is no formula and the court must have regard to the evidence before it
concludes whether all, some, or none of the expenses in sections ()(d) and/or (f) are extra-
ord in ar y. In L .K.S. v. D.M.C.T., it was stated that it is “preferable to deal first with subsec-
tion () [of the Guidelines] to determine whether the expenses are necess ary in relation
to the child’s best interests and reasonable in relation to the mea ns of the parents before
dealing with t he definition of extraordinar y expenses in subsection (A).”
To qualify as a section expens e, the applicant must meet the thresholds stated in
sections () and (A) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines. In MacD onald v. Pink,
Forgeron J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, distilled the following pri nciples from rel-
evant Nova Scotia case law:
MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, [] O.J. No. (C.A.); Titova v. Titov, ONCA ; Beisel v. Hender-
son, [] S.J. No. (Q.B.).
M.A. v. F.H.A., BCSC ; N. S.C. v. D .C., NBQB ; Bocaneala v. Bocaneala, NSSC ;
Williams v. Steinwand, NWTSC ; Titova v. Titov, ONCA ; Zigiris v. Foust anellas,
ONSC ; Beisel v. Henderson, [] S.J. No. (Q.B.).; J.C. v. S.A.W., YKSC .
Hamilton v. Hamilton, BCSC ; Newman v. Tibbett s, [] N.B.J. No. (Q.B.); Abbott v. Crane,
[] N.J. No. (U.F.C.); Clark v. Clark, ONSC ; Olaitan v. MacDougall, PECA ; Car-
michael v. Douglas, [] S.J. No. (Q.B.).
SOR/-, s. , November , , C anada Gazette, Vol. , No. , December , . And see
L.K.S . v. D.M.C.T., NSCA .
C. J.T. v. G.A .T., ABQB ; S.M.K. v. R.K ., BCSC ; L.K.S. v. D.M.C.T., NSCA ; War d
v. War d, ONSC ; Hennenfent v. Loftsgard, SKQB ; J.C. v. S.A.W., YKSC .
Gaspers v. Gaspers, SKCA .
NSCA at para. .
NSSC at pa ra. .
To continue reading
Request your trial