D.L.Y. v. J.A.P.Y.

D.L.Y. v. J.A.P.Y.

The court allowed the father's 76.3% share of certain expenses where the mother established necessity and reasonableness (orthodontic shortfall, psychoeducational assessment, initial tutoring, assistive software, and counselling) but dismissed claims where necessity or reasonableness was not proven (computer purchase, ongoing tutoring beyond demonstrated need, speech therapy, chiropractic care, and school trip); father ordered to pay $6,082.71 now and his proportionate share of ongoing orthodontic and counselling within set limits.

Citation
2003 BCSC 1372
Parties
Plaintiff (mother): D.L.Y.; Defendant (father): J.A.P.Y.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.7 Federal Child Support Guidelines / Hearing on S.7 Expenses (application)
Outcome
Partial success for plaintiff; some s.7 claims allowed and others dismissed; each party to bear their own costs unless written submissions are made.
Legal Topics
Section 7 Expenses, Orthodontics, Tutoring/educational Programs, Psychoeducational Assessment, Counselling, Speech Therapy, Chiropractic Treatment, Software/assistive Technology, Costs
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Support Custody and Access Health Related Expenses Section 7 Expenses Orthodontics Tutoring/educational Programs Psychoeducational Assessment +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D.L.Y.

Plaintiff (mother)

J.A.P.Y.

Defendant (father)

Procedural Posture

Application Under S.7 Federal Child Support Guidelines / Hearing on S.7 Expenses (application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimed expenses fall within s.7(1) categories
  2. 2 Whether each expense is necessary in the child's best interests
  3. 3 Whether each expense is reasonable in light of the parties' means and prior family spending pattern

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed the father's 76.3% share of certain expenses where the mother established necessity and reasonableness (orthodontic shortfall, psychoeducational assessment, initial tutoring, assistive software, and counselling) but dismissed claims where necessity or reasonableness was not proven (computer purchase, ongoing tutoring beyond demonstrated need, speech therapy, chiropractic care, and school trip); father ordered to pay $6,082.71 now and his proportionate share of ongoing orthodontic and counselling within set limits.

Court Disposition

Partial success for plaintiff; some s.7 claims allowed and others dismissed; each party to bear their own costs unless written submissions are made.

Orders

  • Father to pay mother $6,082.71 as his proportionate (76.3%) share of past s.7 expenses already incurred (orthodontic shortfall $1,383.13; psychoeducational assessment $545.55; tutoring to date $3,052.00; assistive software $140.65; counselling $961.38).
  • Father to pay his proportionate share (76.3%) of ongoing orthodontic treatment as incurred.