Top* Section 7 Extraordinary Educational Expense Lawyers know basic child support is the floor not the ceiling for payments. Our highly rated Section 7 Extraordinary Educational Expense Lawyers help you and the courts calculate BOTH proper basic guideline and special and extraordinary child support expenses. But can one parent unilaterally incur a section 7 expense and force the other parent to contribute? In today’s blog, highly rated Tal Wolf of MacLean Law’s Section 7 Extraordinary Educational Expense Lawyers explains the test.
Our Section 7 Extraordinary Educational Expense Lawyers can be reached at any of our 6 Western Canadian offices in Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna, Fort St John and Richmond as well as our downtown Calgary family law offices. You can call us toll free at 1-877-602-9900 to get started on solving the support problem.
Section 7 Extraordinary Educational Expense Lawyers
You already may be aware that the guiding principle for awarding extraordinary expenses under s. 7 of the Guidelines is that each parent pays in proportion to their respective income. Your Vancouver Section 7 Extraordinary Educational Expense Lawyers at MacLean Law, however, will explain that proportionate income is far from the only factor. In fact, the Court retains discretion to award a different proportion based on the financial circumstances of the payor and payee. As well, an award for an extraordinary expense can be denied or the proportion paid can be adjusted based on the means of the payor and payee: see Ebrahim v. Ebrahim (1997), 73 A.C.W.S. (3d) 812 at paras. 19-21 (B.C.S.C.). In Ebrahim, the husband’s income was substantially less than his ex- wife’s but the means of the husband were adjusted by the Court to factor in contributions he was receiving from his family. This approach is consistent with the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision, McLaughlin v. McLaughlin (1998), 167 D.L.R. (4th) 39(B.C.C.A.), discussing the reasonableness of extraordinary expenses Justice Prowse, writing for the Court, held at para. 48:
[48] . . . The question of reasonableness involved examining the “means” of the parties, taking into account the reality of their separate status and such other factors as their
. . . capital, income distribution, debt load, third party resources which impact upon a parent’s ability to pay, access costs, obligations to pay spousal or other child support orders, spousal support received and any other relevant factors . . .
Section 7 Extraordinary Educational Expense Lawyers -Means
In Baum v. Baum, 2000 BCSC 1835, Justice Martinson expressed the notion that the means of the parties under s.7 of the Guidelines should be interpreted liberally:
[9] Section 7(1) of the Guidelines does however give the court a discretion. It requires the court to consider the means of the parties, not just their income. The word “means” should be interpreted broadly to include not just the income of the spouse, but other sources of revenue available to that spouse. The court can look at the economic wellbeing of the spouses and this includes a consideration of family income.
[10] Section 7(2) does say that a guiding principle is that the expense is shared by the spouses in proportion to their respective incomes after deducting from the expense, the contribution, if any, from the child. However, the mandatory provisions of s. 7(1) must prevail when there is a conflict.
In Pearse v. Pearse, 2010 BCSC 117, Justice Schultes, citing Baum, held that the wife’s means were to be assessed based on income available to her through her new spouse. The Court held that the wife was to pay a greater share of certain educational expenses as “her overall means as part of her family unit are greater than the defendant’s.”
A similar conclusion was reached in Marshall v. Marshall, 4 R.F.L. (5th) 115 (B.C.S.C.) (Master). In that case the husband’s income was higher than his ex-wife’s (although he only made $25,000 a year). However, the wife had recently begun cohabiting with a new spouse who earned $54,000 a year. When considering who was to pay for daycare, which was deemed an extraordinary expense, Master Powers factored in the new spouse’s contribution to the means of his new wife.
And, as per Z.D.D. v. R.C.G., 2004 BCSC 1239at para. 22, these educational costs must be reasonable.
Courts have addressed the importance of both parents being consulted before a child takes on an especially expensive educational program. Regarding this issue, the Court said the following in Pearse v. Pearse, 2010 BCSC 117at paras. 50-51:
[50] There is also a question of the fairness of seeking to impose a share of this rather large educational expense on the defendant in the absence of any prior consultation with him about its reasonableness. I draw the analogy to situations in which one spouse commits to a much more expensive post-secondary education program than might normally have been anticipated.
Section 7 Extraordinary Educational Expense Lawyers Duty to Consult
Last month’s case Espersen v. Espersen, 2017 BCSC 1206 appears to add one more factor to the mix – consultation with the paying parent!
Espersen was an application concerning extraordinary expenses for the post-secondary educational costs of twin boys. The mother argued that beyond accommodating her sons in her home in Maple Ridge, if they were to attend a local university, she did not want to financially support their educational pursuits. The father wanted the mother to be responsible for a proportionate share of the boys’ educational costs.
Our Section 7 Extraordinary Educational Expense Lawyers warn you to Remember, when children embark on a program of education the cost of which is remarkably higher than that which would be the case in most other career paths at either university or college, there is a positive obligation on them (and on any custodial parent who seeks to recover a substantial portion of the cost of that education as an extraordinary expense) to enter into meaningful discussions with the parent who is expected to contribute. This is based on the concept of utmost good faith. In the absence of doing so, that parent should not be expected simply to provide a blank cheque.
Applying these principles, the Espersen Court found that although the parties had engaged in protracted conversations via email regarding the costs of the boys’ education, there was no email on record making it clear that one of the boys had decided to attend university in the United States, which also happened to be the opposite of what the father had led the mother to believe. The Court ended up using the first child’s much lower (Canadian) tuition as a benchmark for what was “reasonable” in the circumstances.
Section 7 Extraordinary Educational Expense Lawyers
IF YOU HAVE CONSULTED WITH YOUR SPOUSE WHO REFUSES TO PAY REASONABLE SPECIAL OR EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES, INCLUDING EDUCATION COSTS FOR YOUR CHILDREN, MAKE YOUR NEXT CONSULTATION WITH THE VANCOUVER FAMILY LAWYERS AT MACLEAN LAW. Toll free 1-877-602-9900.
