A separated parent’s obligation to pay for their adult child’s post-secondary education including tuition, residence, meals and transportation has been the subject of debate ever since the law changed in 1997 with the introduction of the Child Support Guidelines.
The actual legislation that covers this is section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines that states:
“7(1) In an order for the support of a child, the court may, on the request of either parent or spouse or of an applicant under section 33 of the Act, provide for an amount to cover all or any portion of the following expenses, which expenses may be estimated, taking into account the necessity of the expense in relation to the child’s best interests and the reasonableness of the expense in relation to the means of the parents or spouses and those of the child and to the spending pattern of the parents or spouses in respect of the child during cohabitation:
(a) child care expenses incurred as a result of the employment, illness, disability or education or training for employment of the parent or spouse who has the majority of parenting time;
(b) that portion of the medical and dental insurance premiums attributable to the child;
(c) health-related expenses that exceed insurance reimbursement by at least $100 annually, including orthodontic treatment, professional counselling provided by a psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist or any other person, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, prescription drugs, hearing aids, glasses and contact lenses;
(d) extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education or for any other educational programs that meet the child’s particular needs;
(e) expenses for post-secondary education; and
(f) extraordinary expenses for extracurricular activities.
(1.1) For the purposes of clauses (1) (d) and (f), “extraordinary expenses” means:
(a) expenses that exceed those that the parent or spouse requesting an amount for the extraordinary expenses can reasonably cover, taking into account that parent’s or spouse’s income and the amount that the parent or spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate, or
(b) where clause (a) is not applicable, expenses that the court considers are extraordinary taking into account,
(i) the amount of the expense in relation to the income of the parent or spouse requesting the amount, including the amount that the parent or spouse would receive under the applicable table or, where the court has determined that the table amount is inappropriate, the amount that the court has otherwise determined is appropriate,
(ii) the nature and number of the educational programs and extracurricular activities,
(iii) any special needs and talents of the child,
(iv) the overall cost of the programs and activities, and
(v) any other similar factors that the court considers relevant.
(2) The guiding principle in determining the amount of an expense referred to in subsection (1) is that the expense is shared by the parents or spouses in proportion to their respective incomes after deducting from the expense, the contribution, if any, from the child.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), in determining the amount of an expense referred to in subsection (1), the court must take into account any subsidies, benefits or income tax deductions or credits relating to the expense, and any eligibility to claim a subsidy, benefit or income tax deduction or credit relating to the expense.”
The leading case that interpreted and clarified the law for this issue has been Farden v. Farden, 1993 CanLII 2570.
The legal test to determine if a parent is to pay such post-secondary legal costs in accordance with section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines has become known as the “Farden factors” which include:
-whether the course of studies is part time or full time;
-whether or not the child has applied for, or is eligible for, student loans or other financial assistance;
-whether the career plans of the child are reasonable and appropriate;
-the ability of the child to contribute to his/her own support through part-time employment;
-the age of the child;
-the child’s past academic performance and whether the child is demonstrating success in the chosen course of studies;
-what plans the parents made for the education of their children, particularly where those plans were made during co-habitation;
-in the case of a mature child who has reached the age of majority, whether or not the child has unilaterally terminated a relationship from the parent from whom support is sought.
In a series of appellate court decisions throughout Canada, the Farden factors were followed to decide if a parent was required to pay for such costs and, if so, in what amount.
Each provincial Court of Appeal added to the Farden factors.
For example, in Perfanick v. Panciera, 2001 MBCA 200 (CanLII), the Manitoba Court of Appeal stated “an adult child should contribute towards her own education and living expenses to the fullest extent possible through bursaries, student loans, or summer or part-time employment, but recognized that in some cases a total reliance on student loans might prove a crushing burden to a young graduate.”
In Smith v. Selig, 2008 NSCA 54 (CanLII) the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal stated that “there is no hard and fast rule that student loans should be the last resort. Each case depends on its own particular facts. The higher the parents’ income, the less the student should be required to contribute through loans or other sources of income.
In Ontario, parents with children over the age of majority may still have child support obligations if their adult children are enrolled in post-secondary education.
In British Columbia, the definition of the term “child” includes individuals 19 years of age or older and unable, due to disability, illness or another reason, to obtain the necessaries of life or withdraw from their parents’ or guardians’ charge. British Columbia courts have found the pursuit of post-secondary education to be “another reason”, justifying ongoing support payments from parents to an adult child whose chosen career necessitates post-secondary education.
In Alberta, child support for children over 18 years of age continues if the child is a full-time student and there is no definitive end date for support. In evaluating the amount of child support owed, Alberta courts consider whether the child is living at home, whether the child has a considerable income and whether the child has an asset base.
As is obvious from the different treatment of this issue in Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Alberta, a separated parent’s obligation to pay for their adult child’s post-secondary education requires a fulsome analysis of the federal and provincial legislation relevant to your family. A skilled and knowledgeable family law lawyer will help you plan for the unique needs of your family, taking your financial needs and your child’s educational path into account.
Editorial Note: Originally published in 2023, this article outlines the legal considerations behind a separated parent’s obligation to contribute to adult children’s university costs. The factors discussed remain relevant across Canada, though amounts and interpretations may vary by province and case.
Steve Benmor, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M. (Family Law), C.S., Cert.F.Med., C.Arb., FDRP PC, is the founder and principal lawyer of Benmor Family Law Group, a boutique matrimonial law firm in downtown Toronto. He is a Certified Specialist in Family Law, a Certified Specialist in Parenting Coordination and was admitted as a Fellow to the prestigious International Academy of Family Lawyers. Steve is regularly retained as a Divorce Mediator/Arbitrator and Parenting Coordinator. Steve uses his 30 years of in-depth knowledge of family law, court-room experience and expert problem-solving skills in Divorce Mediation/Arbitration to help spouses reach fair, fast and cooperative divorce settlements without the financial losses, emotional costs and lengthy delays from divorce court.
Share this article on: