Schmidt v Schmidt 2025 ABKB 626: Special Dietary Requirements Not a Section 7 Expense
In Schmidt v. Schmidt (2025 ABKB 626), Justice Thompson conducted an extensive review of a Section 7 expenses order and ultimately rejected most of the mother’s request for roughly $350,000 in retroactive reimbursement—costs claimed over a ten-year period for the child’s specialized diet, extracurricular activities, and uninsured medical bills.
The bulk of the matters from the parties’ separation and divorce had been finalized by a 2013 consent order. At that time, their children were aged 20 and 14.
The 2025 dispute focused on support for the younger child—now 26—who, despite serious food allergies and other health issues, completed post-secondary education, participated in extracurricular pursuits, and lived independently, thereby no longer qualifying as a “child of the marriage.”
Applying established case law on consent-order interpretation, Justice Thompson concluded that portions of the mother’s claim could not be treated as mere enforcement but required variation of the 2013 order.
The judge found that “medical diet” expenses, were not clearly defined in the order and could not be interpreted to cover the entire cost of all food the child consumed over 9½ years. The court noted that section 7 relief is limited to incremental costs above what would be spent on a standard diet. Absent evidence establishing that incremental amount, the claim failed and was dismissed.
Attention was paid to a a separate clause in the 2013 order which set a fixed monthly maximum for each child’s extracurricular expenses. That cap precluded application of the 80/20 cost-sharing for any activities beyond the limit. Moreover, the mother’s failure to seek the father’s pre-approval for significant extracurricular expenses further justified dismissing this aspect of her claim.
The judge found that the mother unreasonably delayed asserting her retroactive claim. Even though the parties exchanged financial disclosures annually, the mother never provided receipts nor requested reimbursement until 2023, when the father applied to terminate NS’s support. Only then did she produce a binder of expense records. The court noted no blameworthy conduct on the father’s part nor any hardship to the children as a result of the delay.
The amounts the father was ordered to pay were offset against prior spousal-support overpayments and refunds from the Maintenance Enforcement Program for child-support collection errors. The decision also resolved issues concerning the division of Aeroplan miles and the calculation of the father’s income for the purposes of ongoing spousal support.