When is Private School Tuition Cost a Section 7 Expense?

In Desprez v Bertrand, 2025 ABKB 341, a recent decision from the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, the Court considered whether private school tuition qualified as a special or extraordinary expense under section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

In this case, the parties lived together in an adult interdependent relationship for 11 years and separated in 2022. The mother brought an application before the Court for an order for the parties to share the future costs for tuition, out-of-school costs, health care coverage, swimming, gymnastics, and any other extracurricular or medical expenses. The main issue in dispute before the Court was whether the cost of the child’s private school tuition should continue to be shared by the parties. The Court dismissed the mother’s application.

Background

The parties, who had similar incomes (approximately $145,000 each), had previously agreed their 6-year-old child would attend private school. The child had attended the private school for two years of kindergarten.

The father contributed to the private school tuition in earlier years. However, during that time, the family had also received a government affordability grant that reduced the full-time kindergarten tuition from approximately $16,000 to $3,200. However, tuition was set to rise significantly after a government subsidy ended. Tuition would not be subsidized in the future, and the tuition cost of attending grade one at the private school was approximately $17,200. This cost excludes out-of-school care and other school fees, including uniforms, supplies, and field trips.

The father was generally supportive of their child attending a private school, but he argued that he could no longer reasonably afford half of the tuition on top of his child support obligations under a consent order that settled retroactive and ongoing support.

The Court’s Analysis

Justice McLeod reviewed the test for section 7 expenses, which must be both reasonable and necessary. “Necessity” is not limited to bare essentials but also includes expenses that are appropriate to a child’s stage in life and their specific needs.

Here, the child had no special needs, and there was no evidence that switching schools would be harmful or disruptive to the child. While the private school had a strong, positive reputation, nothing suggested it offered benefits that were not available through the public school system. On these facts, the Court held that private school tuition was not a necessary or reasonable section 7 expense.

Key Takeaways from the Decision

1. Prior agreements are not determinative. Even though the parties had earlier agreed on their child attending a private school, the Court looked to the child’s current needs, circumstances, and the financial reality of the parties.
2. Affordability matters. A parent’s inability to reasonably meet both guideline support obligations and additional section 7 expenses can weigh heavily against the Court ordering that the parent must contribute to.
3. Necessity is fact-specific. Courts will consider the child’s needs, parental means, and whether less costly options can reasonably and sufficiently meet the child’s needs.
4. Private school tuition is not automatically a section 7 expense. Unless the child attending a private school is linked to the child’s unique needs or circumstances, courts may view public school as an adequate alternative.

This case serves as a reminder that section 7 expenses are scrutinized. Section 7 expenses are not about what is “nice to have,” but about what is reasonable and necessary for the child in light of all circumstances.