Parental tutorship, loans between parent and child, financial exploitation of a child: in short, a Quebec Superior Court ruling draws the limits.
Some judgments you read once and never forget. Droit de la famille — 26377, 2026 QCCS 1074, is one of them. Indeed, the Honourable Claude Dallaire, J.S.C., released it at the Superior Court, District of Saint-François.
From its opening lines, the judge issues a warning. After many years on the bench, she had never seen a case like this one. Here, a custodial parent already received child support from the other parent. Yet he also demanded a monthly payment from his own minor children as soon as they turned 14. In addition, he made them reimburse “extra” groceries and the cost of high-speed Internet.
Nor had she ever seen a parent borrow thousands of dollars from a 14-year-old’s savings. Moreover, the father let his son believe the money would be invested for his future. Instead, he used it to pay his own debts.
This case illustrates, in extreme form, a line that many well-meaning parents could cross without realizing it. That line separates legitimate financial education from financial exploitation of a child. The ruling is also a rare and detailed reminder that a parent is, by law, the legal tutor (“tuteur”) of his or her minor child. However, Quebec courts seldom examine this role in such depth.
Background to the Judgment
The parties had three children together, but separated several years ago. First, a 2020 judgment awarded custody to the mother. It also set child support at roughly $1,260 per month, payable by the father. Later, indexation brought that amount to about $1,300.
Between February and June 2022, all three children gradually moved in with their father and his partner. Soon afterward, Quebec’s youth protection authority (the DPJ) became involved. One reason was a campaign to disparage the mother, which the father and his partner carried out in front of the children.
Then, on October 31, 2024, the Youth Division of the Court of Québec urgently returned the two boys to their mother. It found that the partner’s conduct was contributing to the abuse the children suffered, because they were caught at the centre of their parents’ conflict.
Back home, the mother once again became primarily responsible for the children. Only then did she discover the full extent of what had been happening financially at their father’s house.
A “Rent” Charged to 14-Year-Olds
As soon as each boy turned 14, the father demanded $100 a month from him. Next, the amount rose to $200 at 15 and to $300 at 16. Meanwhile, his partner sent the payment reminders at the start of each month. In fact, these text messages, entered into evidence, read almost like a landlord’s invoice.
Besides the rent, the father billed his sons for wall-outlet installation and the high-speed Internet package. In total, that came to roughly $720 to $800 per child, per year. He also added the cost of their cell phones, clothing, snacks and even passport renewals. Those passports, in fact, were meant for a trip the children had never heard about.
Financial Education or Financial Exploitation of a Child?
Before the court, the father defended the practice. He was teaching his sons the value of money, he said. Besides, he himself had paid for “his own stuff” at the same age, while his partner was going through a difficult financial period.
However, the evidence told another story. For example, the father earned more than $100,000 a year and already received child support from the mother for these same children. In addition, he never showed that his own resources were insufficient to feed and house them, as the law requires. Therefore, the judge rejected several of his explanations as not credible. In fact, many expenses he labelled “extras” were basic needs, already covered by the support he collected.
On this point, the judgment restates a fundamental principle. A minor child has no legal obligation to feed or support his parents, even with personal savings. On the contrary, Quebec law works the other way around: parents must feed and support their children. Admittedly, the law does allow a tutor to draw on a child’s property to support him, but only when the tutor’s own resources fall short. Clearly, that was not the case here.
Loans From a 14-Year-Old to His Father
The most striking part of the case involves three loans. Between January 2023 and March 2024, the father borrowed $15,500 from his eldest son, then 14. In fact, the money came from savings the boy had built up working, because he hoped to buy a restaurant franchise one day.
The father offered roughly 5% annual interest on two of the loans. By contrast, the third loan of $1,500 carried no interest at all. Furthermore, that money went toward building not one, but three suspended ceilings in his basement, shortly before he sold the house.
A Minor Cannot Enter Into Such a Contract
The judgment explains that a minor lacks the legal capacity to enter into such a contract. In principle, a minor cannot act alone in any legal transaction, except to meet ordinary needs such as food, clothing or education. Therefore, financing renovations at his father’s house falls outside that category.
As the boy’s legal tutor, the father had to represent his son in this transaction, rather than become its beneficiary. The court then reiterates the duties of a tutor. First, he must act in the child’s best interest and avoid any conflict of interest. Second, he must never commingle the child’s money with his own. Finally, he must make the funds entrusted to him grow, instead of spending them.
Lesion, a Remedy That Protects Minors
Quebec law also provides a specific remedy against contracts that disadvantage minors: lesion (“lésion”). For instance, a contract can be found lesionary if the minor derives little benefit from it, or if the surrounding circumstances were abusive. Moreover, a definitive financial loss is not even required.
The court concludes that these loans meet that test. Indeed, the child gained no real benefit from the money, which instead financed his father’s lifestyle. Still, annulling the loans would have accomplished little, since the principal had already been repaid. Much of that repayment came at the last minute, just before the hearing. The rest followed during a reopening of the evidence, after the father sold his house. As a result, the court restored balance another way. It ordered the father to pay interest on the loan that carried none, at the same rate as the other two.
Belongings Held Hostage: Another Form of Financial Exploitation of a Child
After moving in with their mother, the children tried to retrieve their personal belongings, such as a bike, a scooter, a basketball hoop and clothing. However, the father demanded payment of the outstanding Internet balance by text message before handing them over.
On this point, the court is unequivocal. No one has a right to retain another person’s property, except where the law specifically allows it, such as a mechanic holding a car until repairs are paid. Therefore, withholding a child’s belongings in exchange for a disputed debt amounts, according to the judgment, to a form of financial coercion. In some circumstances, it could even qualify as theft under the Criminal Code.
What the Court Ordered
The judgment answers seventeen separate questions. First, it orders the father to reimburse the “rent” he collected unlawfully. As a result, the older boy recovers $5,700 and the younger one $1,900. In addition, the order covers the Internet fees improperly charged, the outstanding balance on one loan and the interest owed on all three, with legal interest throughout.
The court also orders the father to return the children’s personal belongings still in his possession. Finally, it awards the mother a costs provision for the legal fees generated by this case, because the facts uncovered were exceptional.
Child Support Recalculated
The judgment likewise recalculates child support to reflect the parties’ real incomes through the children’s successive moves. Notably, the court declined to count the teenagers’ employment income against the support owed by the father for most of the years at issue. Yet the law does allow this, exceptionally, when a child’s resources are substantial.
The court then added an important caution. In short, this case does not establish a general rule that a working teenager’s income automatically reduces the support owed by parents. Restraint matters even more where the teenager struggles academically, as both boys did here.
Why This Case of Financial Exploitation of a Child Stands Out
This judgment illustrates, with unusual clarity, a question few parents ever stop to ask. How far can you go in teaching a child the value of work and money? Of course, wanting a teenager to understand that he has to work for what he wants remains a respectable value, shared by many parents.
However, the law draws a clear line, and this case crossed it by a wide margin. Above all, a parent remains the legal tutor of his minor child. That role carries strict duties of loyalty, prudence and disinterestedness, much like any administrator of another person’s property. Consequently, a parent who uses his authority to borrow or extract his child’s money crosses that line. The breach runs deeper when he lets the child believe the money will serve his future.
Financial Exploitation of a Child: Key Takeaways
In short, this case offers useful reminders for any parent, starting with the line between sound financial education and financial exploitation of a child.
First, a minor child never has a legal duty to support his parents, even with savings set aside.
Second, a parent may borrow from a minor child only under strict conditions. In other words, the same duties of prudence and loyalty that apply to managing someone else’s property apply here, and never for the parent’s own benefit.
Third, no one has the right to withhold a child’s belongings in exchange for payment of a disputed debt.
Finally, a parent who believes that child support no longer covers a child’s real needs must go to court. In other words, taking matters into one’s own hands, by dipping into a child’s income or savings, is not an option.
This column is published for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every family situation is unique and therefore deserves review by a professional. Do you have questions about child custody, child support, tutorship or the protection of your minor children’s property? The Virtulex avocats team is available to assist you.
