“The courts have taken various approaches as to how child support should be determined in cases involving children who attend school away from home for all or a part of the year. A review of these cases reveals that typically, the closer the circumstances of the child are to those upon which the standard Guidelines approach is based, the more likely it is that the standard approach set out in section 3(1) of the Guidelines will be applied: see Weseman v. Wesman (1999), 1999 CanLII 5873 (BC SC). The various approaches adopted by the courts include the following:
-
-
-
-
- In some cases, the courts have determined that the appropriate approach is to calculate the actual costs of providing for the needs of the child during the entire year, factoring in a contribution towards the costs to the recipient of maintaining a residence for the child to return home to on weekends and during the summer, and apportioning the amount between the parents after taking into account the appropriate amount that the child should contribute: see for example Merritt v. Merritt, 1999 CarswellOnt 1471 (Ont. S.C.J.). Other courts have adopted the same approach, without adding in an amount for the cost to the recipient of maintaining a home base for the children: see for example Johnson v. Johnson, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1030 (B.C.S.C.).
- Some courts have made what can be described as “bifurcated orders,” ordering the Table amount for the period of time when the child is residing with the recipient, and directing the parents to each pay a share of the child’s total expenses for the remaining months of the school year, including both living expenses and education expenses, reduced by the appropriate amount of the child’s contribution: see for example Bertram v. Murdock, 2006 CarswellOnt 1394 (Ont. C.J.); Calder v. Purdy, 2005 CarswellNS 521 (N.S.S.C.).
- Other courts have adopted the approach set out in subsection 2 above, with the exception that they have also factored in the recipient parent’s costs of maintaining a residence for the child to return home to during the summer and for holidays: Albert v. Albert, 2007 CanLII 29972 (ON SC), 2007 CarswellOnt 4863 (Ont S.C.J.); approved of in Marsh v. Jashewski, 2011 CarswellOnt 6196 (Ont. S.C.J.).
- The trial judge in Lewiadopted the approach outlined in subsection 2 above, with the exception that she pro-rated the total Table amount payable for the period of time the child would be residing with the recipient during the year over the course of twelve months. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Lewi determined that this approach would have been appropriate if it had been taken globally pursuant to section 3(2)(b) rather than as a two step analysis involving the determination of an appropriate Table amount and then a section 7 analysis, as the trial judge had done. It is significant, however, that the court commented that this approach may not be the most appropriate from the perspective of the recipient, in that it fails to recognize the ongoing costs to the recipient of maintaining a home for the child to return to during the summers and other holiday periods. Thus, the court endorsed the possibility that where the full Table amount of child support is ordered for the time that a child is at home while attending post secondary education, it may be appropriate for the recipient to also receive not only a contribution towards the child’s expenses during the school year but also a contribution towards the cost of maintaining their own residence as a home base for the child.
- In other cases, the courts have ordered the Table amount for the months when the child is home during the summer, a specified percentage of the Table amount each month for the months when the child is away at school for the recipient to cover the child’s living needs, and a proportion of the child’s education expenses (i.e. tuition, residence, books and supplies).”
-
-
-