What is the test for making a contribution to post-secondary education costs for an adult child?

[14] The Court of Appeal recently considered the issue of contributions requested from a parent to an adult child’s post-secondary educational expenses in Lewi v. Lewi.[1] A number of principles emerge from that case: 1. When the issue of contributions to post-secondary education costs for an adult child is before a court, the court is required to consider the provisions of subsection 3(2) as well as section 7 of the guidelines. 2. Although the wording of these sections may differ, the analysis required under each is the same. The court has a broad discretion to consider the appropriate contribution, if any, of the child and of each parent to post-secondary education costs, after taking into consideration the means of the child and of each parent and any other relevant circumstance. A further factor relevant in such decisions is the reasonableness of the quantum of the expenses, taking into account the child’s and the parents’ means and any intention that the family may have formed on this issue prior to separation. There is no “formula” to establish the proper contribution from the child, if any contribution is required. 3. The court will require the same type of information and evidence about an adult child’s means as is required from the parents to deal properly with a request for parental contribution to post-secondary education costs. 4. If a child chooses a more rather than less expensive program of post-secondary education, that factor may indicate a greater contribution is required from the child, depending on the child’s means. 5. Although the “guiding principle” in the guidelines with respect to each parent’s contribution to special expenses is that it be proportionate to income, some other proportion may be justified depending on the circumstances. 6. An order for a contribution to post-secondary education costs is just part of an order for “child support” pursuant to the guidelines. If a party claims a contribution from a parent for post-secondary education costs of an adult child, the court may consider — even if neither party puts this in issue — whether, pursuant to subsection 3(2) of the guidelines, support should be paid at the table amount, or whether that approach is inappropriate. If that approach is inappropriate, some different and perhaps reduced table amount may be ordered. 7. The fact that a child resides in university residence away from her parents for most of the year may be sufficient to establish that it is “inappropriate” to order payment of support in the full table amount, particularly if a parental contribution to post-secondary education costs, which include residence and meal plan costs, is claimed. In determining what “other amount” is appropriate, there is no standard formula (such as table support for four months a year that a child resides at home) that should be applied; the approach taken should depend on the circumstances. It is also open to a court dealing with the issue of support for such a child to determine that it is appropriate to have payment of support be in a full table amount, perhaps deducting from any section 7 expenses payable amounts that represent a duplication of payment for certain costs (such as food).