Special or extraordinary expenses

• Author: Julien D. Payne/Marilyn A. Payne
• Pages: 224-269

   

SPECIAL OR EXTRAORDINARY

EXPENSES1

A. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS; DISTINCT IONS BETW EEN

ORDINARY AND EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES

ecourtmay,ontherequestofeitherspouseorformerspouse,

provide in a chi ld support

order for the payment of any of the following expenses, or any portion of those expenses,

takin g into account the necessity of the exp ense in relation to the child ’s b est interests and

thereasonablenessoftheexpense,havingregardtothemeansofthespousesorformer

spousesand those of the childand to the family’s spending pattern prior tothe separation:

(a) child care expenses incurred as a result of the custodial pa rent’s employment, illness,

disability,oreducationortrainingforemployment;

(b) thatportionofthemedicalanddentalinsurancepremiumsattributabletothechild;

(c) health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement byat least  annually

per illne ss or event, including or thodontic treatment, profes sional counsell ing provided

by a psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist or any other person, physiotherapy, occu-

pational therapy, speech therapy, prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses, and contact

lenses;

(d) extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education or for any educa-

tionalprogramsthatmeetthechild’sparticularneeds;

(e) expensesforpost-secondaryeducation;and

(f) extraordinary expenses for extracurricularactivities.

 SeeElizabethJollimore,“APractitioner’sGuidetoPresentingApplicationsunderSectionofthe

Federal Child Suppor t Guidelines”(PaperpresentedtotheFederationofLawSocieties,NationalFamily

Law Program, Muskoka, Ontario,July ); MelanieKraft & Philip M. Epstein, “e Extraordinary

InterpretationsofSectionoftheGuidelines”inSyrtashCollectionofFamilyLawArticlesinCom-

mentary on Quicklaw, SFLRP/-;Jim M. Stof‌fman, “Special or Ext raordinary Expenses” in Syrtash

Collection of Fam ily Law Articles in Com mentary on Quicklaw, SFLRP/-.

Middleton v. MacPherson, [] A.J. No.  (Q.B.).

Federal Child Suppor t Guidelines,s.().



Special or Ex traordinary Expense s 

A reference to “special or ext raordinary expen ses” appears in the margi nal note to sec-

tionoftheFederal Child Suppor t Guidelines,buttheterm“specialexpenses”doesnot

appear in the body of section. . “Special,” as distinct from “extraordinary,” expenses are“Special,” as distinct from “extraordinary,” expenses are

generally added more or less as a routine matter,provided that they are not un reasonably

high.

An order for specia l or extraordi nary ex penses under se ction  of the Federal Child

Support Guidelines is not prem ised on a prior or conc urrent order for the pay ment of the

basic table amount of ch ild support. A non-primary re sidential parent may se ek contribu-

tion to a child’s extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities and the amount or-

dered may be set-of‌f agains t the table amount of child support pay able by the non-primar y

residential parent .While orderinga pro rata sharingofalloftheallowableexpensesunder

section  of the Gu idelines, a court may order that t he mother shall assume the pr imary re-

sponsibility for dealing with certain designated expenditures while the fathershall assume

the primary responsibility for the others.

Although child care expenses, medical and dental insurance, health-related expenses

and post-secondary educational expenses need not be extraordinary under sections ()(a),

(b), (c) a nd (e) of t he Federal Child Support Guidelines inordertowarrantajudicialalloca-

tion, expens es for primar y or secondary school education or for a ny educational programs

that meet a child ’s particular nee ds under section ()(d)of t he Guidelines and expens es for

extracu rricula r activit ies under sect ion ()(f) of the Guidelines mu st be extr aordinar y in

ordertobeallowable.

All expenses, however, must meet the tests of necessity and reason-

ableness set outi n section () of the Guidelines. eonusfallsontheapplicantwhoseeks

special or extraordinary expenses under section  of the Child Support Guidelines to prove

that the expenses are necessary in relation to the child’s best interests and reasonable hav-

ing regard to the parental f‌inancial circumstances.

Ef‌fectiveMay, ,sectionoftheFederal Child Support Guidelines wa s amended

to promote clarit y and consistency in t he def‌inition of “extraordina ry expenses” under sec-

 Slade v. Slade,[]N.J.No.  (C.A.);V.C . v. J .D. B.,  NSS C .

Sharf v. Sharf, []O.J. No.  (S.C.J.).

 Whitley v. Whitley, [] B.C.J. No.  (S.C.); Johnson v. Johnson,[]B.C.J.No.(S.C.);Davis v.

Davis,[]B.C.J.No. (S.C.);butseecontraHannigan v. Hannigan,[]B.C.J.No. (S.C.).

 Van Bils en v. Van Bilsen, [] O.J. No.  (S.C.J.).

 Fis her v. Fisher,[] O.J. No.  (S.C.J.).

 D.B .C. v. R.M.W.,[]A.J.No.(Q.B.);Hi emstra v. Hiemstra,[]A.J.No. (Q.B.);Klo czko v.

Kloczko, [] B.C.J. No.  (S.C.); Calcada v. Ferrei ra, [] B.C.J. No.  (S.C.); W.L . v. R.W.,[]

N.B.J. No. (Q.B.); Murphy v. Murphy, []N.J. No.  (S.C.); Hoover v. Hoover, []N.W.T.J.No.

 (S.C.); A.J.K. v. S.L.M., [] O.J. No. (S.C.J.); MacKinnon v. MacKinnon,[]O.J.No.

(C.A.)(child care expenses); Krislock v. Krislock,[] S.J. No.  (Q.B.); Beisel v. Henderson,[] S.J.

No.  (Q.B.).

 Hiemstra v. Hiems tra, ibid.;Kloczko v. Kloczko, ibid.;Calcad a v. Ferreira, ibid.;L.J.M. v. G.S.M.,[]

N.B.J. No. (Q.B.); Murphy v. Murphy, ibid.;Beisel v. Henderson,ibid.; Prokopie v. Kuzniar,[]S.J.

No.  (Q.B.).

 Chin v. Li,[] B.C .J. No.  (S.C.); McC af‌frey v. Paleolog, [] B.C.J. No.  (S.C.); Newman v.

Tibbetts, []N.B.J. No.  (Q.B.); Abbott v. Crane,[]N.J.No. (U.F.C.);Giamm arco v. Moccia,

[] O.J. No.  (S.C.J.);Zi mmerman v. Doe, []O.J. No.  (S.C.J.); Carmichael v. Douglas,

[]S.J. No. (Q.B.).

 CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES IN CANADA, 

tions()(d)and()(f)oftheGuidelines.

 In Frass v. Frass, Sandomirsky J., of the Saskatch-

ewan Court of Queen’s Bench, stated that hedid “not believe that the ‘reasonable coverage’

def‌initioncontainedintheMay, amendmentisnewlaw.Atbest,itisasingletest

now enunciated in leg islative form which should prov ide for more consistency and predic t-

ability as opposed to themany attemptsto articulate a def‌inition of extraordinary which is

found in the cas e law.” Pursuant to sec tion (.)(a) of the amended Guideline s, expenses are

extraordinaryif they exceed an amountthat the requestingparent can reasonably cover. In

determini ng whether the ex penses are rea sonably af‌fordable, the cou rt must consider t he

income of the requesting spouse and any child support received. Where section (.)(a) is

inapplicableinthattheexpensesdonotexceedanamountthattherequestingspousecan

reasonably cover, the court will determinewhether the expenses are extraordinary by tak-

ingintoaccountthefollowingf‌ivefactors:

(i) the amount of the expense in relation to the income of the spouse requesting the

amount, including the amount of child support received,

(ii) the nature andnumber of the educationalprog rams and extracurricular activities,

(iii) any special needs and talents of the child or children,

(iv) the overall cost of the programs and activities, and

(v) any other similar factor that the court considers relevant.14

Four separate butrelated issues arise under section  of the Federal Child Support Guide-

lines,namely,

(i) the expenses mustf all within one of the categories specif‌ied;

(ii) they must be a necessityin relation to the child’s best interests;

(iii) they must be reasonable, having regard to the means of the spouses and childand the

spending pattern before separation; and

(iv) the court must determine whether the expenses claimed are adequately provided for

by the applicable provincial table under the Guidelines.15

e test of necessit y under sect ion () of the Guidelines is not sy nonymous with t he bare

necessities of l ife; it refers to th ings suit able to or proper for the chi ld’s station in l ife bear-

inginmindhisorherrequirementsatthetime.

 e reasonableness of t he expenditu re

under section () of the Guidelines is more dif‌f‌icult to determine because it brings into

play economic real ities. Where as a parent is presu med capable of paying the applicable

table amount of child support established by the Guidelines, it cannot be assumed that

the parents can af‌ford to contribute to section  expenses under the Guidelines. However,

the fact thatparents may haveto scrimp somewhat in their discretionary spendingis not a

 SOR/-,s.,November , ,CanadaGazette,Vol.,No. , December, .See

D.M.C.T. v. L.K.S.,  NSCA ,  R.F.L. (th) .

 [] S.J. No.  at para.  (Q.B.).

 D.M.C.T. v. L.K.S.,NSCA, R.F.L.(th).

 Trueman v. Trueman,[]A.J.No.(Q.B.);Yen sen v . Yens en, [] B.C.J. No.  (S.C.); W.L.

v. R.W., []N.B.J. No.  (Q.B.);L.J.M. v. G.S.M., [] N.B.J. No. (Q.B.); Budden v. Combden,

[]N.J. No.  (S.C.); A.J.K. v. S.L.M.,[]O.J.No.(S.C.J.);[]O.J. No.  (S.C.J.);;Park v. ompson,[]O.J.No.

 (C. A.); Rush v. Rush, [] P.E.I.J. No.  (S.C.).

 Hiemstra v. Hiems tra,[]A.J.No. (Q.B.);T. L.S . v. D. J.M.,  NSSC , [] N.S.J. No. .

 Trueman v. Trueman,[]A.J.No.(Q.B.),T.L .S. v. D.J. M.,ibid.