Special or extraordinary expenses
| Author | Julien D. Payne, Marilyn A. Payne |
| Pages | 251-304 |
SPECIAL OR
EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES
A. DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN ORDINARY AND EXTR AORDINARY
EXPENSES; DEFINITION OF EXTRAORDINARY 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 means of the spouses or former
spouses and those of the child a nd to the family’s spending pattern prior to t he separation:
) child care expenses i ncurred as a result of the custod ial parent’s employment, illness,
disabil ity, or education or traini ng for employment;
) that portion of the medical and dental insura nce premiums attributable to the chi ld;
) health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least annu-
ally per illnes s or event, including orthodontic treatment, professional counselling 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;
) extraordinary expenses for primary or se condary school education or for any educa-
tional programs that meet t he child’s particu lar needs;
) expenses for post-secondary education; and
) extraordi nary expenses for ex tracurricula r activities.
A reference to “special or extraordinary expense s” appears in the margi nal note to sec-
tion of the Federal Child Support Guidelines but the term “special expens es” 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 regula r table
Middleton v. MacPherson, [] A.J. No. (Q.B.).
Federal Child Support Guidelin es, s. ().
CHILD SU PPORT GUIDELINES IN CA NADA,
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, extracur ricular and
recreational e xpenses. “Specia l,” as distinct from “extraordinar y,” expenses are generally
added more or less as a routine matter, provided that they are not unreason ably high, but
controversy can arise with respec t to the “necessity” for a child to be engaged in extracur-
ricular 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 portion of the expenses enumer-
ated, which expenses may be estimated t aking into account the necessity of t he expenses
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.
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-prim ary residential parent m ay seek contribu-
tion to a child’s extraordinar y expenses for extracu rricular activ ities and the 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 m ay order that the mother shall assume the pri mary re-
sponsibility for dealing w ith certain designated expenditures while t he father shall assume
the primary responsibi lity for the others.
Although child care ex penses, medical and dental i nsurance, health-related expenses
and post-secondary educational expenses need not be ext raordinary under sect ions ()(a),
(b), (c), and (e) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines in order to warra nt a judicial alloca-
tion, expens es for primar y or secondary school educ ation or for any education al progra ms
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 ext raordinary in
order to be allow able. All expenses, however, must meet the tests of necessity and reason-
ableness set out in section () of the Guidelines. e onus falls on the applicant who seeks
Cl arke v. Clarke, BCSC at paras. –, Ba ird J.
Slade v. Slade , [] N.J. No. (C.A.); V.C. v. J.D.B., NSSC . Compare Ol aitan v. MacDougall,
PECA .
Shar f v. Sharf, [] O.J. No. (S.C.J.).
Russell v. Russell, NSSC .
Carr uthers v. Carruthers, BCSC ; J.C. v. M .C., NBQB ; Price v. Holman-Price ,
NLTD(F) ; Vantomme v.Vantomme, SKQB .
Whi tley v. Whitley, [] 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.);
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 ; Beisel v. Henderson, [] S.J.
Special or Ex traordinary Expense s
special or extraordina ry expenses under section of the Federal C hild 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 was amended
to promote clarity and consistency in t he definition of “extraordinary expens es” 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 amount t hat 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 factor t hat the court considers relevant.
ese factors indicate the significa nt discretion reposed in the court of fi rst instance
to determine what is or is not an extraordi nary expense bas ed 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 i na ry. 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 means 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. I n MacDonald v. Pink,
Forgeron J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, distilled the following pri nciples from rel-
evant Nova Scotia case law:
a. Section of t he Guidelines provides the cou rt with the juri sdiction to grant a discre-
tionary awa rd.
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 , , Canad a 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., BC SC ; L.K.S. v. D.M.C.T., NSCA ; Gibson
v. Gibson, ONSC ; Bear v. omson, SKQB ; J.C. v. S.A.W., YKSC .
Gaspers v. Gasper s, SKCA .
NSCA at para. .
NSSC at para. .
To continue reading
Request your trial