KB Justice refuses to order father to pay hefty tennis bill and European field trip
In Joe-Joe v Joe-Joe, 2023 ABKB 551, Justice Lema considered an application by a mother for reimbursement of section 7 expenses. In 2021, the parties had agreed that there would be a monthly cap of $100 for the father’s contribution to section 7 expenses.
The main section 7 expenses were tennis training fees, orthodontics, and a school field trip.
The parties’ daughter was a tennis player and had been involved in the sport since the age of 5. The daughter showed great potential for a future in tennis. Up until 2018, the tennis expenses for the daughter were affordable in the range of $2000-3000. After 2018, the mother changed the daughter’s tennis training facility and the fees had gone up to $10,000 per year. While tennis was a section 7 expense which was set out in the parties’ 2021 order, the father argued that the fees were simply unaffordable, and that the mother had changed the training center without consulting with the father. As at the date of the hearing, the father had not had regular parenting with the daughter for 5 years.
In addition to the tennis expenses, the mother was seeking partial reimbursement for a school field trip that the daughter had taken to Europe. In total the trip to Europe cost $3914. The mother consulted with the father about the trip however the father indicated that he was not agreeable to contributing to the trip.
Lastly, the mother was seeking for the father to contribute to an orthodontics bill of $5500 which had been paid entirely by the mother up to the date of the hearing. Prior to incurring the expenses, the mother sought advance approval of the father. The father balked at contributing, especially in face of the $100 per month cap on section 7 expenses, and indicated that it looked like the daughter did not need orthodontics.
In making a final decision on these issues, Justice Lema ordered for the father to contribute to tennis expenses but based on what the annual expense had been prior to the mother unilaterally changing the training facility. Justice Lema declined to order for the father to pay toward the European trip fining that “this trip expense cannot fairly be regarded as necessary or reasonable for this family, in light of their respective incomes and the absence of any track record of family funding of such extras.” For the orthodontic bill, Justice Lema ordered the father to pay his portion of the full bill as the father did not show any real evidence that the $5500 was excessive or unnecessary.
As a part of rendering his decision, Justice Lema put emphasis on the need for consultation prior to incurring section 7 expenses, even in a situation where there has been parental absence in a child’s life. Justice Lema highlighted the following decision which addressed consultation:
DJE v PAE 2014 ABQB 25, affirmed in 2014 ABCA 403
Sherbo v Sherbo 2021 ABQB 76
Bland v Bland 1999 ABQB 236
NJP v DWH 2006 ABQB 352
AJU v GSU 2015 ABQB 6
If you have question, concerns or would like more information about section 7 expenses please feel free to Contact Us.