“Although the term “other cause” is not defined, courts have found that unemployment due to economic conditions, and a period of transition both constitute an “other cause.” There is also a growing recognition that social and economic factors and conditions such as unemployment, a period of transition, delayed adulthood, and the increased cost of living may also constitute an “other cause.” The caselaw regarding these potential “other causes” overlaps.
Claims for support for adult children who are able to work, but unemployed, have been granted, though generally the courts will limit the duration of support in these cases: see Phillip v. Phillip (Kreger), 1989 CanLII 4610 (SK KB), 60 D.L.R. (4th) 319 (SKQB), at para. 16. In Weir v. Weir, [1986] B.C.J. No. 3096 at paras. 12-13, the court held that dependence arising from a “poor job market” qualified adult children for support. Even more broadly, in Bruehler v. Bruehler, [1985] B.C.J. No. 1958 (CA), at para. 3, the court considered the state of economic depression to be a “other cause” for young people of 18 and 19 years of age who were unable to obtain employment to provide themselves with the necessaries of life.
Children who reach the age of majority and choose not to continue their education may require a brief period to become self-sufficient. Courts have provided “transitional orders” in these circumstances: see S.P. v. R.P., 2011 ONCA 336, [2011] O.J. No. 1968, at para. 32; Schmidt v. Buchanan, 2008 SKQB 314, [2008] S.J. No. 473, at para. 34; Gamache v. Gamache, 1999 ABQB 313, [1999] A.J. No. 474 at para. 3. In Gamache, the court observed that while parents do not “have an indefinite obligation to support a child who is attending school or is unemployed or underemployed,” parents do have an obligation to support adult children who are unable to provide for themselves through “a reasonable transition period.”
In Weber v. Weber, 2020 ONSC 4098, [2020] O.J. No. 2978, at para. 62, the court stated:
The case-law recognizes that children may require a reasonable transition period after ending their studies to seek out and obtain employment. The assessment of whether the child remains unable to withdraw from parental charge during such a transitional period for reasons that may justify ongoing entitlement to support, and the appropriate length of any such transitional period, involves a careful consideration of all relevant evidence respecting the child’s overall condition, means, needs and circumstances
In Jefic v. Jefic (Grujicic), 2022 ONSC 7240, [2022] O.J. No. 5698, at para. 68, the court acknowledged the increasing use of the transition period as an “other cause”. See also A.E v. A.E., 2021 ONSC 8189, at para. 189. In AE, Chappel J. concluded that the adult child, who continued to live with his mother, remained a “child of the marriage” despite having been out of school for more than a year. The court found he was both emotionally and financially dependent on his mother and recognized the impact COVID had on employment and the impact that the high-conflict parental separation had on his ability to achieve independence.”