Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One way street?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • One way street?

    Are Section 7 and Extraordinary expenses really only a one way street?

    First off, I know you should never believe what an ex says, but my bfs stbx emailed him tonight saying she would not contribute to any section 7 or extraordinary expenses that occur while the children are with us... we wanted to sign the children up for swimming lessons this March Break... we were not seeking any payment from her, rather wanted to know what level the kids completed in the summer, so we could enroll them in the next class up. From that she figured he wanted payment for it, which is not the case as swimming lessons here are $80 ( compared to $60-something where she is living) We are fine with covering the $80 as it will give us time to do something fun with the kids, while providing them with a learning experience.

    In the Family Law Act it states:

    Sharing of expense
    (2) The guiding principle in determining the amount of an expense referred to in subsection (1) is that the expense is shared by the parents or spouses in proportion to their respective incomes after deducting from the expense, the contribution, if any, from the child. O. Reg. 391/97, s. 7 (2).


    So both him and the stbx would be considered parents, does it matter where the expense occurs, can only the primary parent seek reimbursement?

  • #2
    In the first sentence you wrote, you answered your own question.

    In any event, something like this depends a lot on the custody arrangements, as well as the amount of CS paid/received/etc. How often does your boyfriend have the children? More or less than 40%?

    $80 for swimming lessons would USUALLY be covered via CS payments and wouldn't fall under section 7. HOWEVER say the children were looking into say...competitive diving, or were extremely gifted and looking to compete in various events to do with swimming. THAT would possibly be section 7. (and honestly would be a LOT more than $80 anyway )

    However, note the USUALLY there. Something is NOT section 7 if it could be reasonably covered by CS. The kicker is what is reasonable for YOUR situation and what is reasonable for MY situation could be vastly different.

    I usually tell people to use the fitness credit field on the income tax as a guideline....combined do the activities exceed 500/year / child? If the answer is no, it's usually NOT section 7. It's not perfect, but it's a reasonable enough approximation.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks NBDad, swimming lessons we feel are not section 7...given her income of over $40,000, plus the $344 she receives in CS should cover her $63 expense she spends on swimming lessons.

      We were not seeking anything from her for the $80 each we were spending for swimming lessons, we were just asking what level they were in so we could put them in the appropriate levels.

      He has the children only 30% of the time, however it is often more as she often asks him to take them on her weekends, which is great as he enjoys the extra time with them.

      his big concern is that she doesn't feel any expense he may have when they are with him are considered section 7, including babysitting expenses. She feels these only apply to the CP, so therefore she wants him to pay his regular CS, plus his share of her expenses, plus full price for any of the expenses he has.

      She does not agree with the Child Fitness Tax as he has mentioned it to her before. She feels he should pay the expense and then she will reimburse him at tax time, which he is not comfortable doing and he does not trust her to do that.

      I guess he will just wait it out until she decides to go see her lawyer...its only been 3 months since he sent his last response to her

      Comment


      • #4
        In the scenario you described, I would personally take the stance the $63 is NOT section 7, given the income levels of the parents. It could reasonably be covered by CS.

        Obviously works both ways, so if he is claiming it's not section for her fees, then it's not for his either. If she wants to push the issue, she'd need to provide receipts/etc AND he could simply request that she pony up for his costs too. She doesn't get it both ways, either swimming is section 7 or it's not.

        Where possible, pay your fees directly to the provider. (That way SHE doesn't get the receipt for the full amount).

        Babysitting depends on the age of the child, but for HER TO WORK it would be section 7. (after any applicable UCCB credits are applied of course) Make sure she isn't also using the same sitter for nights out or whatever.

        Hell, if she wants to spend a few thousand on a lawyer to fight over less than $40 a month in Section 7, let her.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by NBDad View Post
          Babysitting depends on the age of the child, but for HER TO WORK it would be section 7. (after any applicable UCCB credits are applied of course) Make sure she isn't also using the same sitter for nights out or whatever.
          Does that mean that any expenses he has regarding babysitting are not considered section 7? The only time this really matters in during the summer, as we have them for 2 weeks in July and 2 weeks in August. During her time with the kids, bf's mom watches them, but when we have them there is no family around that is able to watch them.

          Therefore, she has no babysitting expenses during July/August but still receives the UCCB?

          We have asked to have a detailed outline of when the children are in daycare/babysitting... the only receipt he has received was random dates, with different amounts beside each date... the total on the receipt was $743.73, however, when you add up the numbers its actually only $663...but this is not taking into account any UCCB, which of course she is fighting.

          It surprises me how much she wants to fight the law... his last response via email to her, he copied and pasted the section from the Family Law Act that pertained to Section 7/Extraordinary expenses as well as sent her the website so she could read it directly... but she is convinced that UCCB don't come into play...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
            Does that mean that any expenses he has regarding babysitting are not considered section 7? The only time this really matters in during the summer, as we have them for 2 weeks in July and 2 weeks in August. During her time with the kids, bf's mom watches them, but when we have them there is no family around that is able to watch them.

            Therefore, she has no babysitting expenses during July/August but still receives the UCCB?

            We have asked to have a detailed outline of when the children are in daycare/babysitting... the only receipt he has received was random dates, with different amounts beside each date... the total on the receipt was $743.73, however, when you add up the numbers its actually only $663...but this is not taking into account any UCCB, which of course she is fighting.

            It surprises me how much she wants to fight the law... his last response via email to her, he copied and pasted the section from the Family Law Act that pertained to Section 7/Extraordinary expenses as well as sent her the website so she could read it directly... but she is convinced that UCCB don't come into play...
            UCCB is tax law not family law. Just fill out the paperwork, provide the custody and access agreement and they handle everything else. They go back 2 years on overpayments too.

            Good Luck!
            Tayken

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Tayken View Post
              UCCB is tax law not family law. Just fill out the paperwork, provide the custody and access agreement and they handle everything else. They go back 2 years on overpayments too.

              Good Luck!
              Tayken
              Does this apply even when he has the children less than 40% of the time? I always thought that only the CP could apply for the benefit?

              Comment


              • #8
                40% is the typical threshold used by CRA. However, calculate the time over holidays/summer as well..sometimes that is enough to clip the bottom edge of it.

                At 38/39% you could easily make a valid claim.

                If the ex "drops" the kids off on you a lot, document the amount of time spent. Then file with CRA.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by NBDad View Post
                  40% is the typical threshold used by CRA. However, calculate the time over holidays/summer as well..sometimes that is enough to clip the bottom edge of it.

                  At 38/39% you could easily make a valid claim.

                  If the ex "drops" the kids off on you a lot, document the amount of time spent. Then file with CRA.
                  Exactly. CRA will do everything. Document document document.

                  Also, they will go back on tax returns too and fix the double dipping.

                  Good Luck!
                  Tayken

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hi Berner...If I had our boys for March break and wanted to put them into a swimming camp for that week (or if dad did) I wouldn't expect him to pay half (just like what you had indicated). But if the swimming was going 2x/week for x months then I would expect both parents to split the cost.
                    I also agree that it shouldn't be section 7. If you put the children into competitive swimming 5x/week with anticipation this would go on for several years, and at quite an increased cost I would expect that to be treated as section 7.

                    We are still going back and forth right now with lawyers and are dealing with the financial non-disclosures at this point (still !)...but my lawyer has recommended I detail every possible section 7 expense I think could arise and include it in our agreement so there would less of a debate about it in the future. Hoping I catch them all.

                    If she's not paying for any of their sporting/music activities I hope you get to claim the $500 tax credit for it at the end of the year.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by May_May View Post
                      If she's not paying for any of their sporting/music activities I hope you get to claim the $500 tax credit for it at the end of the year.
                      And this is why it isn't a S.7 expense more often than not. To even bother with going after S.7 expenses you have to cross a significant cost threshold.

                      NBDad pointed this out earlier in a post I think in this thread. The one things judges hate are "nickel and dime" parents. If your combined income is equal to the average Canadian household or higher, don't expect a judge to find anything funny about fighting over swimming lessons and 50$ bills.

                      Good Luck!
                      Tayken

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        That is the point he is trying to make to her... her income is over $40,000, plus she received CS on top of that...

                        He would never let the kids go without, just because their mom is a twat, but the fact that she is trying to get him to pay for $67 swimming lessons, in which his share would be $22, seems petty...$22 dollars wouldn't hurt him at all, but those small amounts add up over time.

                        He has yet to ask her to contribute to any expenses we have when the children are with us, but her stance on Section 7 is only a one way street just seemed off. Either way, he will continue to provide the kids with what they need when they are here, and unless she has an actual section 7 expense, he will just tell her what he has told her all along.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                          That is the point he is trying to make to her... her income is over $40,000, plus she received CS on top of that...

                          He would never let the kids go without, just because their mom is a twat, but the fact that she is trying to get him to pay for $67 swimming lessons, in which his share would be $22, seems petty...$22 dollars wouldn't hurt him at all, but those small amounts add up over time.

                          He has yet to ask her to contribute to any expenses we have when the children are with us, but her stance on Section 7 is only a one way street just seemed off. Either way, he will continue to provide the kids with what they need when they are here, and unless she has an actual section 7 expense, he will just tell her what he has told her all along.
                          May be best to just ignore the request at this point versus trying to tell the other party what to do. You can have it thrown back in your face as being "controlling" even if on the grounds of law and supporting case law are correct.

                          With someone as high conflict and demanding as you have been describing some times radio silence is best on issues like this.

                          Good Luck!
                          Tayken

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Yes, since the last communication with her went down hill by her flipping out, he has ignored the other 5 emails that have came.

                            Comment

                            Our Divorce Forums
                            Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                            Working...
                            X