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

[stripes]

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).

[dad2bandm]

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.

[rockscan]

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.

[stripes]

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.

[thefunone]

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...

[thefunone]

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

[stripes]

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).

[thefunone]

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)

[nfc4ever]

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.

[undersc0re]

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...

[GWILDER]

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

[Pursuinghappiness]

1. X wants to get a cellphone for my child who is 12 yrs old. She claims that the cellphone will be use for EMERGENCY ONLY, and should not have data. Does this expense fall under section 7?

My kid's is but its because its actually listed in our SA. Normally its not although if you're buying your kid one so they have a communication method with both of you...its reasonable to split the cost as long as the phone is being used appropriately.

2. X go Canada's Wonderland Seasons passes for both of our kids. X claims that they are part of section seven? Is she right? Personally I don't thinks so.

lol...um, no

[salsero12]

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.

Ex and I need to set boundaries with regards to cell phone use.

CW passes will not be part of the Section 7 expenses.

Thank you once again for your opinions. I'm glad to have found such a great support group.

With regards;

FP

[stripes]

Why not get Kid an iPod? She can text with it, so she can communicate with parents and friends, but there's no data plan.

Alternately,
1) Dad could agree to put a one-time contribution towards the purchase of the phone, but not the monthly plan. (This is what my bf did with his kids). This avoids having haggle with the ex every month about what portion of the plan he's responsible for).

2) Dad and Mom could agree that Dad will share the cost in some other way - splitting it equally or alternating months.

3) If Kid is the one who really wants the phone, she could earn money towards the cost - 12 is old enough to do some chores for pay, and very short order she will be old enough to babysit.

I don't buy the "emergency" argument. And perhaps I'm old-school, but I've seen enough kids turned into slack-jawed screen zombies by their phones that I wouldn't assume that this is a necessity at the age of 12.

But a cellphone is not S7, and neither is Canada's Wonderland.

[blinkandimgone]

It's highly unlikely that you would get a court to agree that a cell phone is a special expense or that $20 is an extraordinary expense. The expense would be split proportionate to income, and for a $20 expense, if anything, likely it would fall under CS. Much like a class field trip etc.