THE SCOPE OF PARENTING COORDINATORS AND SECTION 7 EXPENSES
In the recent case of Sandhu v Mangat, 2025 BCCA 34, the BC Supreme Court shed some light on the scope of parenting coordinators’ (PC) jurisdiction and section 7 expenses relating to ‘special or extraordinary expenses’ under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.
Case Background
The parties married in July 2009, separated in December 2016, and have three young children together.
The final consent order for parenting time between the parties transitioned from the children residing primarily with the claimant to an equal division of time via a 2-2-3 schedule. The parties engaged a PC pursuant to a section 211 Family Law Act (FLA) recommendation and their final order. In March 2024, a dispute arose regarding the children’s soccer enrollment, where the PC selected Richmond United over Vancouver in an initial determination. After the claimant enrolled the children in Richmond and requested the respondent’s respective financial contribution, the respondent declined. This conflict led to subsequent issues with expenses and a request for the PC to make a determination was made.
Positions of the Parties
The case at hand involves an application seeking to set aside a PC’s determination regarding section 7 expenses, specifically:
- Setting aside the determination made by the PC.
- Imposing a maximum limit on the number of extra-curricular activities that the children can be enrolled in, which overlaps both parents’ parenting time to a maximum of one per child.
- In the event the Court determines the PC’s decision is unreasonable beyond a mere technicality, an order pursuant to section 15(6)(b) of the FLA, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25, setting aside the parenting coordinator agreement, and an order pursuant to section 19(2) of the FLA.
The Determination
The PC's determination referenced the relevant evidence and the legal principles for assessing section 7 expenses and clarified that the income in the most recent court order applied to the PC’s determination. Despite the claimant’s higher current income, the PC was bound by the final order pending a formal review. The PC noted that while many cases address section 7 issues, the outcomes are fact-specific.
Legal Principles - Guidance Around Setting Aside Parenting Coordinator’s Decisions
Under section 19 of the FLA, a court may set aside a parenting coordinator’s determination if:
- the coordinator acted outside of their authority (section 19(1)(a)), or
- made an error of law or mixed law and fact (section 19(1)(b)).
The Court mentioned case law that supported the finding that PCs should be a cost-effective, alternative form of dispute resolution. If the PC generally carried out their role in pursuant to the terms of the agreement and the FLA, then a court should be reluctant to terminate an agreement solely on the basis of a minor, technical, or temporary misapplication or breach of an agreement or order.
What Standard of Review Applies to Parenting Coordinators?
For questions of legal authority, the standard is correctness. If the Court finds that a PC exceeded their lawful authority, the determination should be set aside, no matter how reasonable it is.
For errors of law or mixed law and fact, the standard is reasonableness. A decision is unreasonable if it is illogical, not justified by the facts or law, or falls outside the range of acceptable outcomes.
The test for section 7 expenses includes:
- Whether the expense is reasonable and necessary in light of the child’s best interests.
- Whether it is extraordinary based on the family’s financial circumstances and the nature of the activity. In assessing the means, the court may consider the parties’ capital assets, income distribution, debts, third-party resources, access costs, support obligations, receipt of support, and any other relevant factors.
In this case, the Court found that the PC had applied the correct test.
Section 7 Expense Analysis
It was argued that the PC failed to consider both the parties’ financial positions and the children’s skills. The court disagreed, stating:
- the PC correctly relied on the income from the final order, as required under the agreement, and
- a finding of exceptional talent is not required, special skills are just one possible factor under section 7.
The respondent’s comparison to individual and recreational activities like golf and swimming was rejected, as team and registered sports differ qualitatively. The PC also considered the parties’ financial history, including prior shared contributions.
So-called retroactive expenses: The respondent argued that expenses must be pre-approved in writing or by the PC to qualify. The Court disagreed, noting that the PC had the authority to determine such expenses without a timing restriction. Since the respondent had generally contributed to section 7’s where he agreed to the sport and in this case, agreed to soccer in general, the claimant had no reason to seek prior determination. The respondent also failed to raise the retroactive issue directly with the PC, and before the determination. The Court found that the term "in advance" applies only to "agree in writing," not "determined by the PC."
Procedural fairness: The respondent misinterpreted a clause of the parenting agreement that allows the PC to decide the time, place, and manner of the process, along with three listed options. The Court found that it was clear the PC could select which option she wanted to follow and did not need to do all of them sequentially.
Conclusion
In consideration of this analysis, the Court ultimately concluded that no aspect of the determination was without authority, unreasonable, or wrong and that deference should be given to the PC when making determinations that are within the scope of their retainer.
This alert was drafted with assistance from Sarah Warsh, a Summer Associate in the firm's Vancouver office.
