Challenging a Parenting Coordinator's Decision in BC: Sandhu v. Mangat

Author: SiLaw Group Family Lawyers
Published: Aug 10, 2026

---

When separated parents share decision-making, small disagreements can grow fast. Who chooses the soccer program? Who pays for tutoring? A recent BC Supreme Court decision, Sandhu v. Mangat, 2025 BCSC 920, shows how parenting coordinators help answer these questions — and how much weight their decisions carry once made.

The background

The parents in this case married in July 2009 and separated in December 2016. They have three children, born in 2013, 2014 and 2016. Their separation was high conflict, with frequent court applications in the early years. After an assessment report recommended it, they retained a parenting coordinator, and a later court order confirmed that arrangement. By 2022, a consent order gave the parents equal parenting time on a "2-2-3" schedule, which means the children rotate between homes every few days.

A parenting coordinator is a trained professional who helps parents carry out their parenting arrangements. The coordinator first tries to build agreement. If the parents still cannot agree, the coordinator can make a binding decision, called a determination, on certain day-to-day parenting issues.

The soccer dispute

In March 2024, the parents could not agree on which soccer program the children should join: one in Vancouver or one in Richmond. They asked their parenting coordinator to decide, and she chose the Richmond program. The mother enrolled the children the same day and asked the father to contribute to the cost. He refused — the first time, the mother said, that he had declined to share the cost of an activity he had agreed the children could do.

More expense disputes followed. The parenting coordinator took written submissions from both parents and issued a determination on July 19, 2024. She decided that three costs were special or extraordinary expenses under section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines: math tutoring for the youngest child, soccer registration and equipment for all three children, and one sports camp each summer. Using the incomes already fixed by court order — $194,750 for the father and $23,674 for the mother — she confirmed the father would pay 75 percent of these costs and the mother 25 percent.

The father applied to court to set the determination aside. He also asked the court to cap the number of activities that overlap both parents' time, and to end the parenting coordination agreement itself.

What the court decided

Justice Sharma dismissed the father's application in its entirety.

The Family Law Act lets a court change or set aside a parenting coordinator's determination only on narrow grounds: the coordinator acted outside their authority, or made an error of law or of mixed law and fact. The court explained that review is deferential. For claimed legal errors, the question is whether the determination was reasonable — not whether a judge would have decided the same way. Claims that a coordinator exceeded their authority are assessed more strictly, but courts examine such claims carefully so that parenting coordination does not become just another layer of litigation.

Applying that framework, the court found the parenting coordinator used the correct legal test for section 7 expenses. Several points stand out:

• A child does not need standout talent. The father argued an activity cannot be a section 7 expense unless the child's involvement goes beyond that of an average child. The court disagreed: a child's talent is only one factor among many, and no single factor is mandatory (paras. 76–80).
• Registered programs differ from casual outings. Skiing, golfing or swimming with a parent is recreation. Organized team sports, registered lessons and camps are different, and can qualify as shared expenses (para. 81).
• Timing was not a barrier. The father argued the coordinator could only classify an expense before it was incurred. The court rejected that reading of the parents' final order, noting their parenting coordination agreement said nothing about timing — and that it was unfair to raise this objection for the first time in court (paras. 93–96).
• The process was fair. The agreement let the coordinator choose how the determination process would run, and both parents were treated fairly (paras. 101–104).

The father agreed to pay fixed costs of $2,200.

What this means for separated parents in BC

First, a parenting coordinator's determination carries real weight. Court review is not a do-over, and a parent who simply disagrees with the result faces a high bar.

Second, section 7 is not reserved for elite athletes or gifted musicians. Tutoring, team sports and camps can all qualify, depending on the parents' incomes, the cost involved and the children's circumstances. Every case turns on its own facts.

Third, raise your concerns during the coordination process. Arguments saved for the courtroom — especially objections to the coordinator's authority — may not be heard.

Finally, the decision highlights why many high-conflict families use parenting coordination: the court noted a stark drop in conflict after this family's coordinator was appointed. Our team includes an accredited parenting coordinator and can help you decide whether this process fits your family.

You can read the decision on the BC Courts website.

If you have questions about special or extraordinary expenses, our child support team is here to help. Book a free consultation to talk through your situation.

This post is legal information, not legal advice.