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

S

salsero12

New member
Morning everyone:

I have 2 questions to ask:

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?

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.

Your input in the matter will be greatly appreciated.

With regards;

FP
 
FYI, you had me curious as to whether anyone actually argued Wonderland was a section 7 expense, so a cursory glance through CanLII, found this particular case, where parents were arguing whether expenses were considered "section 7" or not - the father was arguing that Canada's Wonderland outings should be considered. The judge disagreed.

CanLII - 2015 ONSC 2703 (CanLII)

lol.
Maybe there are more cases too?
 
Last edited:
I wonder if you could look at it a different way.

Kids are so into texting these days. I love having the ability to contact my children to ask them a quick question or check in. It saves having to go through the ex's phone when I want to say hello.

Ex and I pay for the phone proportionate to income. My daughter does not have data either as most places she travels (school, my house, his, etc) all have wifi.

We have agreed that it is her phone and neither of us will remove it from her as a consequence of negative behaviour (not related to the phone). Either parent can contact my daughter at any time for any reason (although I must admit, I trust him to be very reasonable about contact and he is.)

Is it worth arguing over $20 a month? Can you see the benefit of being able to reach your child too? Can you set parameters around the phone that the ex will respect?

Something to consider. I feel better knowing my child can call me as the teen years require some independence.

As far as Canada's Wonderland, no. She wants a vacation. She can pay.

Again, unless you get use of the pass too and would use them enough to justify the expense.

Good luck!
 
I've seen a similar situation regarding cellphones for kids and S7. Many are now moving away from having Home Phones and only have cellphones for the family. What I've seen is a child 12+ yrs who walks home from school and has to wait 30mins to 1hr before the parent arrives from work. Since there is no House phone a cellphone was purchased with a pay as you go plan. For emergency calls and had a text plan.

This way the child can call if required for help or text each parent whenever they want to talk.

So it may become more common for cellphones to be S7 if the houses do not have a home phone.

Wonderland trips - Not S7
 
I would say the cell phone is maybe something that could be a reasonable shared expense, but I don't think it technically falls under Section 7.

But a theme park? ummm no.
 
Frustrated_DAD said:
...I've seen a similar situation regarding cellphones for kids and S7...
...So it may become more common for cellphones to be S7 if the houses do not have a home phone....
Click to expand...

I would argue that cellphones are not a section 7 expense.

I think people get confused between what is a special (section 7) expense, and an expense that they would simply like to see the cost of shared between both parents.

CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES | Ontario.ca
(uggh...I don't like the new format of the rules online anymore)

(f) extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities. O. Reg. 391/97, s. 7 (1); O. Reg. 446/01, s. 2.
Click to expand...

That would be the only category currently, that one could possibly argue for, and a cell phone hardly seems "extraordinary" for most folks these days.
 
What qualifies as section 7 expenses is very clearly defined:


Step 7: Determine if there are special or extraordinary expenses - The Federal Child Support Guidelines: Step-by-Step

Neither a cell phone and certainly not theme park passes are covered.

Regarding the cell phone, if both parents agree and consent to the expense than there is no issue with just sharing the cost but not including it in a section 7 expense. The court won't uphold it anyways, most likely. You would definitely need to set out some details around he costs re: who pays for overages etc.
 
- If one parent consults with the other parent first (prior to getting child cellphone, or signing them up for some contract/pay as you go, etc), then this seems like for some, it would be a reasonable expense to share, if both parents agree to it. (Sad&Tired) mentioned some good points, about how she finds it useful in their particular situation.

- If this is a case, where one parent didn't consult with the other first, and is now sending the other parent a bill after the fact, claiming "section 7 - you have to pay", then you can tell them, no, it's not.

(Apparently Blink said much of what I was typing anyway, while I was typing this).
 
My partner was wondering this too. He is able to text his oldest but his youngest isnt speaking to him. Theyre both on a family share plan and only have a text plan which is a flat rate. One could argue the flat rate may be considered but if its only say $20 a month, wouldnt that be s7?

In his case, mom would never agree to show him her bill so thats probably why he hasnt had that demand yet :)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

lol...um, no
 
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
 
GWILDER said:
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
Click to expand...

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...
 
salsero12 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top