Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Activities 50/50 Split or Proportional Case Law

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Janus View Post
    So, it seems like you are just trying to show that regular extracurricular activities are not S7 expenses. There is some case law on both sides of that issue, but on this forum you would be preaching to the converted. We all agree with you.

    The problem is I don't see how you jump from that to "it is not an S7 expense so she owes me half". Do you have case law that shows a parent being forced to contributed half to a non-S7 activity due to shared parenting? I think that's the bigger hurdle.
    Yes, that is true. There are examples showing both sides, it all depends how it is presented by both lawyers to the judge who makes the final decision.

    First, the judge has to answer the question about imputing income. If income is imputed, I will argue the expenses are ordinary and shared 50/50. If not, I will argue they are still ordinary and be paid by her 100% since I pay full table CS.

    It is up to her to prove they are s7 which I will use case law to debate citing the costs do not exceed what can be reasonably covered. If she is getting full CS, the costs are reasonable If she is imputed and getting offset CS, 50% of the costs are reasonable. I will also debate the 6 year status quo where we have agreed the expenses were not s7 and shared 50/50 and that there is no MCIC to warrant a change.

    Comment


    • #17
      I would agree with Janus, I know in my case, as the support payor I am portrayed as controlling and difficult when asking the support recipient to pay for things and if it's not a Section 7 expense, there is no real requirement for them to pay. I may need to revisit this with another lawyer in my case.


      I personally feel this is a big flaw in the system but so far haven't really found a way to compel my ex to pay for their share of expenses short of paying everything myself and having to litigate or let the child go without. I guess that is my fault for agreeing to a 50/50 ?!?


      My perception is the courts find it petty to deal with and don't want to get involved with day-to-day expenses. Being the higher income earner, they have very little pity. Maybe I'm cynical.


      In your case, it makes sense to argue, just not sure how receptive the judge will be.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by SurftheWave View Post
        For the past 6 years we have agreed to share costs 50/50 for hockey, soccer and summer camp (about $1000 total costs each year)
        BEST CASE: you stand to gain $500/year. This, even if sustained for say the next 3 years, is substantially less than what you would have to pay a lawyer to represent you in the court application you are contemplating. It is not in your financial interest to take this to court.

        Originally posted by Janus View Post
        The problem is I don't see how you jump from that to "it is not an S7 expense so she owes me half". Do you have case law that shows a parent being forced to contributed half to a non-S7 activity due to shared parenting? I think that's the bigger hurdle.
        Without such case law the hurdle is insurmountable.

        Originally posted by Gilligan View Post
        ... courts find it petty to deal with and don't want to get involved with day-to-day expenses. Being the higher income earner, they have very little pity. Maybe I'm cynical.

        In your case, it makes sense to argue, just not sure how receptive the judge will be.
        No, it doesn't - for the reasons you (Gilligan) yourself pointed out.

        WORST CASE: The judge declines to impute an income on your ex, declares the expenses s7, and orders you to pay them in full (because your ex makes nothing) and to continue to do so for the next X number of years.

        Comment


        • #19
          What was your ex's income which offset was based on? That amount should be imputed on her. Even if she was on OW, I still don't see these items being s7.

          Normally these items are covered under child support. Since you both pay offset, these items should be split equally. If she was paying for something else, you could work out what is owed and pay the difference. So each item isn't split but each responsible for different items. Otherwise, I believe this is an example where you deviate from the straight offset amount to help you cover the costs.

          You have status quo to your advantage and will help you in court. The problem is that most of these items need to be agreed to, so if one side says no; you're screwed. At least your ex is taking the kids to the activities... she hates you more than them.

          Comment


          • #20
            if the child is going to summer camp while you are at work during your parenting time, woiuldnt that be a childcare expense?

            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