Splitting Private School Costs After Separation in Brockville

The situation

Mai and Natalia had been together for eleven years and married for seven when they decided to separate. They owned a mortgaged home in Brockville, each had a workplace pension building quietly in the background, and they had an eight-year-old daughter who had spent the last two years at a small private school built around a structured literacy program. The separation itself was, by their own description, calm. They agreed to sell the house and split the proceeds. They agreed to divide their pensions using the standard equalization approach available to separating spouses in Ontario. Parenting time was worked out over a few conversations without much friction.

The private school was the one item that would not resolve itself. Mai, an elementary school teacher, had pushed for the placement in the first place after their daughter struggled with reading in the early grades. Natalia, a paramedic working rotating shifts, had gone along with it while they were together and splitting costs from one household budget. Once they were separating into two households, Natalia's view shifted. She still wanted her daughter to do well in school. She no longer felt she could commit to roughly $14,000 a year in tuition on top of everything else a second household would cost.

The legal problem

Under the Child Support Guidelines that apply across Canada, child support has two layers. There is the base monthly table amount, calculated from the paying parent's income and the number of children, which covers ordinary day-to-day costs like food, clothing and housing. Then there is a second category, commonly called special and extraordinary expenses, which covers costs that fall outside that baseline — things like child care needed for work, health-related expenses not covered by insurance, extracurricular activities above a certain intensity, and in some circumstances private school. Those costs are typically split between the parents in proportion to their incomes, not equally, and only after both parents agree the expense actually qualifies under the guideline.

That second condition was the sticking point. Private school is not automatically a shareable expense just because a family chose it while together. A parent has to show it fits within the guideline's categories — most often that it responds to a child's particular educational needs, or that it continues a pattern the family established before separation and that ending it now would be disruptive to the child. Natalia's lawyer would have been entitled to ask hard questions: was the structured literacy program still necessary, or had their daughter's reading caught up enough that a public school with in-class support could serve just as well? Was roughly $14,000 a year proportionate to two household incomes that, combined, sat in the $90,000 to $140,000 range once they were running separate homes? Mai came to Treadstone Law wanting to know whether she had a real claim to keep the placement funded jointly, or whether she was about to spend money on a fight she would lose, and whether there was a middle path that avoided taking the question in front of a judge at all.

There was also a quieter question sitting underneath the dispute. Once the family home sold and the pension equalization was finalized, both parents would be managing separate mortgages or rent on incomes that no longer supported one shared roof. A commitment that felt affordable inside a two-income household could feel very different once split two ways, and that shift in circumstances is itself something the guidelines recognize as relevant to what counts as a reasonable expense going forward.

What we did

1. Assessed whether the expense qualified at all. Before negotiating a split, our team reviewed the school's own assessment records and a recent report from an educational psychologist that Mai had obtained the year before. The documentation showed a diagnosed processing difficulty and recommended continued structured intervention, which put the expense on firmer ground than a simple preference for private education. That mattered — it meant the conversation could start from whether the amount was fair, not whether the expense counted at all.
2. Calculated a realistic income-based split. With Mai earning roughly $62,000 and Natalia earning roughly $68,000, their combined income sat at about $130,000. Applying the standard proportionate approach put Mai's share at close to 48% and Natalia's at close to 52% of any qualifying special expense — a starting figure to negotiate from, not a number either side had to accept outright.
3. Priced out the tax and offset factors. Special expenses are calculated net of any tax benefit or subsidy attached to them. The school did not qualify for any credit, so the full $14,000 was in play, but our team flagged this step explicitly so Natalia's side could not later argue the number was inflated.
4. Opened negotiation with a capped, reviewable proposal. Rather than asking Natalia to commit indefinitely to a fixed dollar figure that would only grow with future tuition increases, we proposed a percentage split of the actual annual fee, capped at a defined ceiling, with a review built in for two years out — timed to when their daughter's literacy support needs would be reassessed by the school.
5. Negotiated directly with Natalia's counsel rather than pushing toward motion court. A contested motion over one child expense, in a case where the parents agreed on everything else, would have cost both of them more in legal fees than a year or two of the disputed tuition itself. We kept the conversation focused on the underlying documentation and the reassessment point, which gave Natalia's side a concrete reason to trust the arrangement would not simply run forever unexamined.

The outcome

The parents did not land exactly where either of them started. Natalia agreed to pay 45% of the school's annual tuition rather than the 52% the strict income proportion suggested, in exchange for the review point at two years and a ceiling that meant she would not be exposed to open-ended increases. Mai accepted the lower percentage and the review date, giving up the certainty of a fixed long-term arrangement in exchange for keeping the placement funded now, while the documentation supporting it was strongest. On paper it meant Natalia would contribute roughly $6,300 a year rather than the roughly $7,300 the strict formula would have produced, with Mai covering the difference plus her own base share.

Both sides gave something up. Natalia would have preferred the expense end within the year; Mai would have preferred it locked in without a review clause at all. The compromise held because it was built around a genuine reassessment point rather than an arbitrary date, which meant neither parent had reason to view it as a decision already lost. The rest of the separation agreement — the sale of the house, the pension equalization, the parenting schedule — proceeded on the timeline they had already set, unaffected by how long the school expense took to resolve.

What you can learn from this