extra curricular fee's

[lets_be_fair]

As part of the gym program at school, the children are signed up for swimming and gymnastics which they will attend one hour per week during school. My X says I have to pay pro rata for this. I say it is part of the child support she receives from me as I pay full child support.
Is there a fine line with this?
I do pay pro rata all after school expenses such as hockey, swimming, ect.
But now she is insisting on the during school activites.

 

[oink]

If the kids are going to be doing the swimming et al at school, perhaps there is no need for duplication of effort outside of school?

The term extraordinary expenses means:

• expenses that are higher than those that the parent requesting an amount for the extraordinary expenses can reasonably cover, in light of that parent's income (including the child support amount), or
• expenses that aren't higher than those that the parent requesting an amount for the extraordinary expenses can reasonably cover, but that are extraordinary taking into account:
  • the income (including child support) of that parent,
  • the nature and number of the programs and extracurricular activities,
  • any special needs and talents of the child,
  • the overall cost of the programs and activities, and
  • any other similar factor that is relevant.

You and the other parent are free to decide if a special expense is reasonable and necessary and how much each of you will contribute to them. As a general rule, you will share in the special expense in proportion to your incomes, but you may agree to any other arrangement. Worksheet 2 at the back of this booklet can help you calculate special expenses.

Source:

Step 7: dealing with special expenses - The Federal Child Support Guidelines: Step-by-Step

NOTE: The income of the parents will only be considered after the expense has been found to be extraordinary and after the expense has been found to be necessary in the child's best interests. It is only at that point when the incomes of the parents come into play to assist the court - otherwise the objectives of the guidelines will not be met.

Some case laws below that might help your situation

Nova Scotia Court Of Appeal: Raftus V. Raftus

The Raftus decision of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal found that the determination as to whether an expense is "extraordinary" is to be interpreted on an objective basis, without regard to parental income. Bateman, J.A., while concurring in the result, would interpret "extra-ordinary" subjectively, in relation to joint parental income. In Raftus, the wife was appealing the decision of a trial judge who refused to find any of the extracurricular expenses submitted by the wife as "extraordinary" s.7 expenses for the children.

The trial judgment was upheld. The expenses submitted totalled $2,259 annually, and were made up of swimming, soccer and Tae Kwan Do lessons, school activities, birthdays, Christmas and special events being claimed as extraordinary extracurricular expenses, under s.7(1)(f) of the guidelines.



The trial judge held that by using the word "extraordinary" to describe the expenses in s.7(1)(f), Parliament has excluded expenses that might usually be associated with such activities. While the trial judge acknowledged the liberal approach taken with respect to the term "extraordinary" found in Middleton v. MacPherson(16), he found that given the financial circumstances of the applicant, after taking into account the basic level of child support, the expenses claimed were not extraordinary.

Essentially, the trial judge held that the term "extraordinary expense for extracurricular activity" means not the basic expense of the extracurricular activity, but the extraordinary expenses associated with that activity". It was stated:

"I determine that by using the word "extraordinary" to describe the expenses relevant rather than simply having stated expenses for extracurricular activities, Parliament has excluded expenses that might be usually associated with such activities."
​

The Raftus decision canvasses three approaches taken by most opposing spouses when claiming or defending s.7(1)(f) expenses. The wife's approach is that the cost of any non-school organized activity, irrespective of the financial resources of the parents, qualifies as an extraordinary expense under s.7(1)(f), provided the expense is considered reasonable and necessary in the context of the parents' financial means and that an appropriate amount ought to be "added on" to the basic table sum.


This approach adopts the liberal approach found in the Middleton v. MacPherson decision. The husband's approach is that the applicant must demonstrate that the expense is truly unusual in nature or amount, objectively, without regard to parental income. The third alternative is to look at the expense of the activity, subjectively, in relation to the parents' incomes to determine whether it is an "extraordinary" expense.

http://www.familylawcentre.com/05cases-n-comments/articles/205-extraordinary-expenses.html

 

[oink]

OP....see if you can take something out of the text below with final order the judge make for the father in question

There are now 5 Court of Appeal decisions from 5 different provinces which bear on the matter: Raftus v. Raftus, (March 25/98) in Nova Scotia, Andries v. Andries, (April 9/98) in Manitoba - which followed the majority decision in Raftus - Kofoed v. Fichter, (May 8/98) in Saskatchewan - following the concurring, but not dissenting, judgment of Madam Justice Bateman Raftus (she agreed with the decision not to allow the appeal but for different reasons), Sanders v. Sanders, (May 20/98) in Alberta (adopting the Middleton approach) and McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, (October 30/98) in British Columbia (which adopted the Justice Bateman approach).

Raftus was first off the block. It had two written decisions in which both decisions reached the same result for the facts of the case at hand but for quite contradictory reasons. Andries followed the majority reasoning in Raftus and Kofoed and McLaughlin followed the minority reasoning of Madam Justice Bateman. All four of the cases dealt with the kind of extracurricular expenses which most parents encounter: swimming lessons, baseball registration, soccer, Tae Kwan Do, school sports, etc.

In Raftus the expenses which the mother sought as "add ons" were for swimming, soccer, Tae Kwondo, school activities and birthdays, Christmas and special events. In the Andries case the expense was travel to baseball games and for school sports. These are the sorts of expenses we see coming up all the time.



The majority decision in Raftus was delivered by Mr. Justice Flinn of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal and held that the means of the parents has no relevance in determining if an expense is "extraordinary" for s.7(1) of the Guidelines. The court looked at the 6 categories of "add ons" referred to in s.7(1) and noted that "three of the categories are, simply, expenses": child care expenses (s. 7(1)(a)), the child's portion of medical insurance premiums (s.7(1)(b)) and expenses for post-secondary education (s.7(1)(e)), and that a fourth category is for expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100 annually. That leaves only ss.7(1)(d) & (f), both of which refer to "extraordinaary expenses" for the category described: "namely, for primary and secondary school education (s.7(1)(d)) and for extracurricular activities (s.7(1)(f))". The court then adopted the meaning of the word "extraordinary" found in the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993:

1. Out of the usual or regular course of order; special. ... 3. Of a kind not usually met with, exceptional; .... 4. Exceeding what is usual in amount, degree, extent, or size, ... 5. additional to what is usual, extra.​

Later Mr. Justice Flinn stated:

The words "extraordinaryexpenses for extracurricular activities", given their plain meaning, in the context of the Guidelines as a whole, can only refer to expenses which are "not usual", "additional to what is usual" or "exceptional". In my opinion, that must be determined, not in light of parental income, but in considering the nature of the activities and the nature of the expenses.​

The question in Raftus was whether the father should be ordered to contribute to such extracurricular expenses as swimming, soccer, Tae Kwondo, school activities and birthdays, Christmas and special events. These include many of the sorts of expenses often claimed as "add ons". Justice Flinn held, as the trial judge had also held, that the costs for these items was not "extraordinary", even though the items were extracurricular.

I recognize that the interpretation which I have placed on s.7(1)(f) of the Guidelines is contrary to what the Court has been told is the prevailing practice among some family law practitioners in this area. Counsel for the appellant, in her factum, says the following:

.... the prevailing practice is to simply add up the costs associated with extracurricular activities and events (which are reasonable given the paries' income levels), and proportion them in accordance with the respective incomes of the parties. The assumption has been that because these types of expenses were not apparently included in the calculation of the basic table amounts (section 3(1)(a)), then section 7(1)(f) of the Guidelines is the only "vehicle" for achieving fairness in the allocation of these costs.​

Because, as I have indicated, the applicable table amounts (s.3(1)(a)) are based upon an average of what parents at various income levels spend on their children, the assumption of counsel (that "ordinary" or "usual" expenses for extracurricular activities and events are not included in the applicable table amounts), is not a valid one.​

Source: http://www.familylawcentre.com/05cases-n-comments/articles/212-whats-extra-whats-not.html

 

[dad2bandm]

How much are we talking here?

I don't know the details here, but this sounds like regular gym class, and the kids are simply required to pay the fees associated with this? I'd think this is akin to having to pay so much per week, to participate in a "hot meal/pizza" day at the school.

Or having to pay $10 now and then, for a field trip, because the kids are going somewhere as part of school, for the day.

I would say, this is covered by child support you already pay. Depending on the amounts involved, you may or may not want to argue over it.

 

[NBDad]

Unless it's some huge amount, then from what you describe this would be covered by your CS.

Simply send your ex an email stating that your understanding is that the amounts for the "in school" components are covered by CS.

If it were some rare occurrence (ie. the kid is on a team that does very well and have to travel for provincial championships or something) then that would be a different matter. But normal "fees" associated to school such as this...covered by CS all the way.

I know it sounds trivial, but once you do it once, you can expect a never ending battle over this nickel and dime crap because you foolishly set a precedent.