“In Titova v. Titov, 2012 ONCA 864 (CanLII), [2012] O.J. No. 5808 (Ont.C.A.) at paragraph 23 Justice Rouleau for the Court set out the principles governing the recognition of s. 7 expenses:
23 In awarding s. 7 special and extraordinary expenses, the trial judge calculates each party’s income for child support purposes, determines whether the claimed expenses fall within one of the enumerated categories of s. 7 of the Guidelines, determines whether the claimed expenses are necessary “in relation to the child’s best interests” and are reasonable “in relation to the means of the spouses and those of the child and to the family’s spending pattern prior to the separation.” If the expenses fall under s. 7(1)(d) or (f) of the Guidelines, the trial judge determines whether the expenses are “extraordinary”. Finally, the court considers what amount, if any, the child should reasonably contribute to the payment of these expenses and then applies any tax deductions or credits.
In Hawkins v. Hawkins, 2019 ONSC 7149 Justice Gregson at paragraphs 73 and 74 elaborated on those principles:
73 The onus is on the parent seeking the special or extraordinary expense to prove that the claimed expenses fall within one of the categories under section 7 and that the expenses are necessary and reasonable, having regard to the parental financial circumstances. See: Park v. Thompson, 2005 CanLII 14132 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. 1695, (Ont. C.A.).
74 To determine reasonable and necessary the court in Piwek v. Jagiello, 2011 ABCA 303, [2011] A.J. No. 1074 (C.A.) and Correia v. Correia, 2002 MBQB 236 stated the following factors should be taken into consideration:
1.The combined income of the parties;
2.The fact that two households must be maintained;
3.The extent of the expense in relation to their combined income;
4.The debt of the parties;
5.Any prospect for a decline or increase in the parties’ means in the near future; and
6.Whether the non-custodial parent was consulted about the expenses before they were incurred.”