• by David Frenkel and Kaitlyn Zarcone-Beam
Extraordinary Expenses Found in Court
Permitted by Judges
Daycare
- The fees for daycare for the younger child while the mother is working are reasonable and in the best interest of the child; F.B.M. v. B.F., 2019 ONSC 708
- Where there are four children and the mother has difficulties finding a job because of her childcare responsibilities; the cost of daycare is a section 7 expense to be shared on an after-tax basis; Zigiris v Foustanellas, 2016 ONSC 7528
Dental
- Dental expenses are necessary and in the child’s best interest; Regaudie v. Thomas, 2002 CanLII 49531 (ON SC)
- $3,000.00 a year was set for dental expenses for four children not including orthodontic treatment; Zigiris v Foustanellas, 2016 ONSC 7528
Hockey
- Hockey was an expense that was incurred prior to separation and should be maintained; Zigiris v Foustanellas, 2016 ONSC 7528
- The children were enrolled in hockey in Canada prior to separation and moved to the U.S. after separation, where the fees were significantly more expensive. Hockey expenses are allowed as a section 7 expense; Peel v. Peel, 2012 ONSC 761
- Having regard for the best interest of the children whose talents and energies have been fostered by hockey, participation has been a reasonable and necessary expense; Sobotka v. Sobotka, 2005 CanLII 3399
Music lessons
- Guitar lessons were deemed a section 7 expense where the parties can afford to contribute and the expense is necessary and in the best interest of the children; F.B.M. v. B.F., 2019 ONSC 708
- Violin lessons are an exceptional expense; Lu v. Zhao, 2014 ONCA 12
Tutoring
- The tutoring expenses must be incurred for the best interest of the children’s education; Zigiris v Foustanellas, 2016 ONSC 7528
- Tutoring is an exceptional expense; Lu v. Zhao, 2014 ONCA 12
- The child’s possible tutoring requirements are not ordinary and are a section 7 expense; Hugel v. Hugel, 2004 CanLII 15763 (ON SC)
- On-going tutoring expenses since separation is an appropriate section 7 expense; Paech v. Paech, 2004 CanLII 4025 (ON SC)
Not Permitted by Judges
Driver’s license fee
- The fee for the issuance of the driver’s license does not fit within any of the items capable of proportionate sharing; Booth v. Howser, 2012 ONSC 4104
Extravagant birthday parties
- Though extravagant birthday parties were consistent with the parties’ spending patterns while the family was intact, they are outside of the guideline principles; Di Manno v. Di Manno, 2002 CanLII 2776 (ON SC)
Nanny
- The children are teenagers and attended school and after-school activities which the nanny did not drive them too. Further, the custodial mother worked part-time from home; Selznick v. Selznick, 2012 ONCA 686
- It is not reasonable to require contribution to a full-time nanny when the children are in full-time school and the parties’ means are limited; A.J.K. v. S.L.M., 2003 CanLII 1969 (ON SC)
- The mother must incur this expense for her two younger children and the children in these proceedings are 13 and 15 and do not require daycare; Demarchi v. Selwyn, 2002 CanLII 2722 (ON SC)
Private school
- There is not enough evidence before the court that the expense is necessary in relation to the child’s best interests; Howe v. Tremblay, 2007 CanLII 44350
- Having regard for the parties’ respective incomes, the school fees are not affordable; Grierson v. Brunton, 2004 CanLII 4019 (ON SC)
- No evidence was presented on why private school compared to public school is in the best interests of the child; Demarchi v. Selwyn, 2002 CanLII 2722 (ON SC)
- The necessity or reasonableness of private school in light of is the parties’ incomes is questionable; West v. West, 2001 CanLII 28216 (ON SC)
Registration fees for sports
- Registrations fess for swimming and soccer are not a proper extraordinary expense, and the Respondent could easily afford these based on his income; Sarkozi v. Pereira, 2012 ONSC 4011
- Registration fees for hockey are distinguished from out-of-town tournaments, as the registration fees are basic costs which should not be considered extraordinary; Olaveson v. Olaveson, 2007 CanLII 23168