Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Having a cellphone counts towards section 7 Expenses, as well as Canada's Wonderland?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    If you are considering a phone with no data for kids , my sister got her 14 year old a one year pay as you go from Rogers for $100 for the year , which included unlimited texting and 100 minutes of talk . Seems very reasonable to split 50/50

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by GWILDER View Post
      If you are considering a phone with no data for kids , my sister got her 14 year old a one year pay as you go from Rogers for $100 for the year , which included unlimited texting and 100 minutes of talk . Seems very reasonable to split 50/50
      So many people do not have a land line these days, so very good idea! Especially if the 14 yr old, or anyone needs to dial 911 etc...

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by salsero12 View Post
        Thank you all for your thoughts, must appreciated.

        By the way FRUSTRATED-DAD there is a land line at the house, where the child can communicate with whomever she wants, but most communications are done via ex's cell phone, especially now that they have soccer practices and games.
        FP
        Is that you and the ex, or you and your child communicating via your text on your ex's cell phone. If its the latter I'd be careful as there's no expectation of privacy that your ex might read the conversations and such.

        Comment


        • #19
          Dad2bandm - there seems to be conflicting case law regarding cellphones and S7 - I have seen both sides of the argument...I think the honest answer is that "it can be" and argued as an S7 expense...whether the judge agrees or not is a crap shoot.

          CanLII - 2015 ABQB 533 (CanLII)
          CanLII - 2015 ONSC 6068 (CanLII)

          Comment


          • #20
            I took a look at those two cases (because cellphone costs are an issue looming on my horizon) and in both cases the judge decided cellphone costs were S7.

            But in other cases (Tapuska v. Tapuska 2009 [Alberta] and Cotton v. Cotton 2015 [Ontario], Bocaneala v. Boceneala [Nova Scotia]), the judge decided that cellphone costs were not S7.

            There's no reason given for why cellphones were or were not deemed to be S7 - it seems to depend on how a judge interprets the idea of an extraordinary expense (extraordinary relative to the means of the parent requesting it).

            Comment


            • #21
              The issue I run into is the 'ALL my friends have an Iphone' from my S12. The phone I had gotten mine was a Samsung - used (free)- unlocked ($50.00)- Koodo plan $15.00/mth unlimited text and picture messaging. Boosters (for data and/or time) available.
              Ex wanted me to get him Iphone ($300.00) and added to my existing plan ($60.00)......ummmm....nope.
              She has now gotten him a used 5s - getting it unlocked and going onto my Koodo plan that was for the other phone

              Comment


              • #22
                I guess the argument a judge has to consider is...."IS an Iphone a reasonable expense...for a 12year old?"
                If yes - then we may be on the hook....but if the judge feels that it is an excessive 'toy' ......it may be th responsibility of the parent who bought it.
                I'm all for trying to give/help out my kids with "things"....but just because they "want" it or other friends "have" one doesn't mean its a necessity...

                Comment


                • #23
                  I can see the argument that a cellphone is a reasonable (maybe not absolutely necessary) expense for a 12 year old, if he's going to be going places on his own or so that he can keep in touch with his friends outside of school. This doesn't mean a top of the line phone is necessary if a less expensive one will fulfill these functions just as well. ("All my friends have a ______" is not a good argument for anything). A compromise might be that you'll contribute to the cost of a basic phone and plan, if Mom wants Kid to have the latest gadgets, she will need to pay the difference between basic and bells-and-whistles.

                  It's also possible for parents to agree to share the cost of a cellphone but not consider it S7. This can help to prevent bracket creep, whereby every expense beyond food and clothing gets interpreted as an extraordinary expense and subject to S7.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    My nieces both got basic cellphones as gifts and are on a basic family plan. Their parents are married. How is it kids from intact families have to follow a reasonable cost/expense "model" but so many divorced families clog the system? Stripes your ex is unreasonable. If he wants kid to have a phone he should pay for it himself. Then he would be limited to it being a basic phone.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by thefunone View Post
                      Dad2bandm - there seems to be conflicting case law regarding cellphones and S7 - I have seen both sides of the argument...I think the honest answer is that "it can be" and argued as an S7 expense...whether the judge agrees or not is a crap shoot.

                      CanLII - 2015 ABQB 533 (CanLII)
                      CanLII - 2015 ONSC 6068 (CanLII)
                      I looked at these two case references you mentioned, and I don't see anywhere where the cell phone costs were ultimately disputed, or decided if they were section 7 or not. In each case, the parents ultimately agreed it was an expense they would share.

                      In the Alberta one, the judge simply states:

                      Mr. D has apparently agreed to treat the cell phone costs as a special expense. That is wise, as I hope he is the beneficiary of some of the use of it by way of increased access to the child. Those costs should go back to the later of the acquisition of the cell phone or January 1, 2013.
                      And in the Ontario case, I don't even see that the cell phone costs were even disputed specifically (probably because the payor makes over $150,000 a year). They were just an agreed upon expense, included in the overall budget.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Looking more closely, you're right - the judge basically reaffirmed what the parents had already agreed, that they would treat cellphones as S7. As long as both parents agree, pretty much any expense can be treated as S7. It's when they don't agree that all the tests and definitions come into play. I posted three cases earlier in this thread where the parents didn't agree and the judge made the call that cellphones were not S7 - but the judge's reasoning wasn't made explicit. (And the cellphone issue wasn't the major point of the case either).

                        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