Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Financial Issues

Financial Issues This forum is for discussing any of the financial issues involved in your divorce.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 01-22-2014, 04:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 103
Wyntermcd is on a distinguished road
Default

@ Billm

Am I misreading something? Based on Dad2bandms post, section 1.1a, it is the income if the person requesting the money that is considered. It doesn't say the combined income.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 01-23-2014, 11:04 AM
billm's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,430
billm is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyntermcd View Post
@ Billm

Am I misreading something? Based on Dad2bandms post, section 1.1a, it is the income if the person requesting the money that is considered. It doesn't say the combined income.
"taking into account that parent’s or spouse’s income and the amount that the parent or spouse would receive under the applicable table"

Table amount received (CS) is based on the income of the other parent, so clearly it is the combined income that is considered.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 01-23-2014, 05:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 103
Wyntermcd is on a distinguished road
Default

Ahh, but what if the amount of support being given or receive is not based on income? But is just a set amount agreed to in a SA.

And maybe I'm being dense, but I still tea that paragraph as saying the person requesting the money, it is their income including what they receive as support that needs to be looked at before deciding if something is extraordinary.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 01-23-2014, 07:08 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,587
Serene is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Ahh, but what if the amount of support being given or receive is not based on income? But is just a set amount agreed to in a SA.
Child support is child support. Whether it is guideline amount or more. It all still counts as child support.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 01-23-2014, 07:37 PM
FWB's Avatar
FWB FWB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 548
FWB is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

@Wyntermcd.....

Quote:
but I still tea that paragraph as saying the person requesting the money, it is their income including what they receive as support that needs to be looked at before deciding if something is extraordinary.
Look at the definition below from a recent case law from CanLii

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...HBlbnNlAAAAAAE

Quote:
the term "extraordinary expenses" means

(a) expenses that exceed those that the spouse requesting an amount for the extraordinary expenses can reasonably cover, taking into account that spouse's income and the amount that the spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate; or

(b) where paragraph (a) is not applicable, expenses that the court considers are extraordinary taking into account

(i) the amount of the expense in relation to the income of the spouse requesting the amount, including the amount that the spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate,
(ii) the nature and number of the educational programs 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.
This seems to be what you are stuck on here.....

Quote:
expenses that exceed those that the spouse requesting an amount for the extraordinary expenses can reasonably cover, taking into account that spouse’s income and the amount that the spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate; or
Another case law follows

Analysis of this statement
Quote:
[24] While the Wife may have to budget in order to cover the above expenses, I cannot conclude that the expenses in question “exceed those that the parent or spouse …can reasonably cover, taking into account that parent’s or spouse’s income and the amount that the parent or spouse would receive under the applicable table…”


[25] The Wife earns more than $62,000 from her employment and will be receiving in excess of $1,750 per month in child support. In this circumstance, the expenses for the extracurricular activities are not “extraordinary” as defined in s. 7 (1.1)(a).


[26] According to s. 7 (1.1)(b), that does not end the inquiry.
Quote:
The test for awarding s. 7 extraordinary expenses was recently described by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Titova v. Titova, 2012 ONCA 864 (CanLII), 2012 ONCA 864, [2012]O.J. No. 5808 [Titova], as follows:

In awarding s. 7 special and extraordinary expenses, the trial judge calculates each party’s income for child support purposes, determines whether the claimed expenses fall within one of the enumerated categories of s. 7 of the Guidelines, determines whether the claimed expenses are necessary “in relation to the child’s best interests” and are reasonable “in relation to the means of the spouses and those of the child and to the family’s spending pattern prior to the separation.” If the expenses fall under s. 7(1)(d) or (f) of the Guidelines, the trial judge determines whether the expenses are “extraordinary”.
Quote:
[32] The question of how to determine whether expenses are “extraordinary” was specifically addressed at paragraph 28 of Titova, based on a British Columbia Court of Appeal decision from 1998:
It also does not appear that the trial judge turned her mind to the question of whether the expense for items such as school books and school registration qualified as “extraordinary”. As set out in McLaughlin v. McLaughlin 1998 CanLII 5558 (BC CA), (1998), 167 D.L.R. (4th) 39 (B.C.C.A.) at para. 64, the use of the word “extraordinary” in s. 7 implies that ordinary expenses are intended to be covered by the basic table amounts.

[33] This interpretation of “extraordinary” is consistent with the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Ostapchuk v. Ostapchuk, 2003 CanLII 57399 (ON CA), [2003] O.J. No. 1733, 64 O.R. (3d) 496, where s. 7 expenses were described as “special or extraordinary expenses that are determined to be additional costs of raising a child that are not incorporated in the table amounts” [emphasis added] (para 13).
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...HBlbnNlAAAAAAE

Last edited by FWB; 01-23-2014 at 07:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 01-23-2014, 08:01 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,838
stripes is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyntermcd View Post
Ahh, but what if the amount of support being given or receive is not based on income? But is just a set amount agreed to in a SA.

And maybe I'm being dense, but I still tea that paragraph as saying the person requesting the money, it is their income including what they receive as support that needs to be looked at before deciding if something is extraordinary.

If you read the whole definition, it's clear that what's being referred to is anything paid as child support, whether it's table or not. As long as you've both agreed to it and/or a court ordered it, and you're calling it child support, it counts.

And yes, it's the income of the person making the request that matters. If they're getting $200K a year as income, regardless of how much of it is earnings and how much is CS, then a request that a $200 soccer camp be considered extraordinary would be silly. If they were only getting $30K a year, it might be different.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 01-24-2014, 12:01 PM
FWB's Avatar
FWB FWB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 548
FWB is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

@Wyntermcd......

The case in the link below is very in-depth wrt your thread title, it also makes mention of some very prominent Justice's...E.g Justice Brownstone

Quote:

Katarzynski v. Katarzynski, 2012 ONCJ 294 (CanLII)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Extra Ordinary expenses 1crzy_ex Divorce & Family Law 1 06-11-2012 01:54 AM
"In proportion to income" for section 7 and extra ordinary expenses? AND field trips fishingdad Financial Issues 3 06-23-2011 07:11 AM
Extra ordinary expenses, retro kelly Financial Issues 0 03-01-2011 10:49 AM
extra ordinary expenses - I am lost! paris madani Financial Issues 5 02-18-2011 12:53 AM
Case Conference- Exta Ordinary expenses. enoughalready Divorce & Family Law 4 06-22-2009 10:56 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:13 PM.