The father has not contributed his proportionate share, so he has some 'catching up to do': court
In a motion to very child support, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has highlighted necessary and reasonable university expenses that could guide the parties in determining their respective contributions in the future.
In Craig v. Niro, 2023 ONSC 3792, the father motioned to vary monthly child support and asked for reimbursement of expenses incurred in bringing his son to university. The parties have two children who reside with them equally. The father earns significantly more money than the mother, and consequently, he pays set-off support to the mother for the two children.
One of their children began university in the fall of 2020. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, he did not attend classes in person that year; instead, he lived at home and learned remotely.
In 2021, the child began attending university in person, and he lived in St. Catherines for eight months. The father moved to vary the child support to reduce his monthly payments. He asserted that if child support is varied retroactively, the mother owes him more than $8,000. He requested that the court order the family responsibility office to credit him this amount towards ongoing child support.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice agreed that monthly child support should be varied retroactively to the date the child began attending university away from home. However, the court said it would not grant the father a full refund because he had not contributed his proportionate share of the child’s post-secondary expenses. Accordingly, the court said he had “some catching up to do.”
The court further said that the father had significantly underestimated what it costs for the child to attend university. The Federal Child Support Guidelines include post-secondary education expenses as “special or extraordinary expenses.” The court must consider that the child resides away from home for part of the year and the costs associated with doing so.
The court agreed that monthly support should be retroactive to when the child began living away from home. The father said he would be entitled to be reimbursed for 16 months at $511 per month, the difference between table support for two children and one child. However, the court pointed out that the $511 the father must pay while the child is at home for the four summer months must be divided by 12 to determine the amount of child support payable each month.
The father also argued that his son’s expenses for university are excessive. He complained about costs such as UBER farers, gas money, alcohol, and eating out. However, the court found that the child’s education expenses significantly exceeded his father’s calculations. The court pointed out that some expenses were not accounted for in the father’s calculations, such as the costs of a tutor and the child’s flights home. The mother also claimed she had spent money directly related to the child’s education, including purchasing a new laptop.
Based on the evidence presented, the court found that the child’s post-secondary education costs exceeded the father’s calculations by approximately $10,000 per year.
The court considered the reasonableness of the child’s education expenses and found that costs incurred towards transportation, entertainment, vacation, and a new laptop were reasonable and necessary. However, the court found that the child’s expenses for eating out appeared excessive, even spread out over a two-year period. The court ultimately held that the child’s necessary and reasonable yearly post-secondary expenses are in the $30,000 range.
The court further determined what the parties should have contributed to the child’s post-secondary education expenses.
The court also held that the child should contribute seventy-five percent of his earnings to the costs of his education. In calculating what each party should have contributed, the court said it is necessary to deduct the amount contributed by the Registered Education Saving Plans (RSEP). The court found that the father has under-contributed while the mother has over-contributed by approximately $5,000. The court held that redistribution was necessary between the parties.
Furthermore, the father sought reimbursement for overpayment of monthly child support since his son moved away to attend university. However, the court said that the amount the mother paid beyond her proportionate share of the child’s expenses should be deducted from any amount reimbursed to the father.
The court ultimately ruled that the father’s motion to vary child support is allowed. The court ordered him to pay monthly support for $989 per month. The court further concluded that its decision may guide the parties in determining their respective contributions in the coming years.
