While in many separations, decision-making and parenting time arrangements are made between the parents with the help of family lawyers and/or mediators, if parents are unable to agree, the court can make these decisions.
In this article, we examine whether the courts apply a presumption of equal parenting between the parents.
The Canadian Divorce Act, prior to amendments that entered into force last year, required the courts to:
…give effect to the principle that a child of the marriage should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child and, for that purpose, shall take into consideration the willingness of the person for whom custody is sought to facilitate such contact.
This maximum contact principle emphasized that children should have as much contact with each parent as is consistent with their best interests. It was accompanied by the “friendly parent rule”, which instructed courts to consider the willingness of a parent to facilitate the child’s contact with the other parent.
In some cases, courts had interpreted the maximum contact principle as creating a presumption in favour of shared parenting arrangements or equal parenting time.
For example, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Folahan v Folahan, explained that in resolving disputes over access (now referred to as parenting time), emphasis needed to be placed on the “critical importance of bonding, attachment, and stability in the lives of young children”.
The judge noted that contact with both parents was the child’s right and that where a parent argues for unequal contact between the child and each parent, the onus is on that parent to rebut the presumption. This meant the parent arguing for unequal contact was required to prove that equal contact with the other parent would conflict with the best interests of the child.
Amendments to the Divorce Act recast the maximum contact principle as “parenting time consistent with best interests of the child”. The new subsection states that:
In allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child.
An amendment to the Ontario Children’s Law Reform Act replicates this provision.
Under both pieces of legislation, when a court makes a parenting order regarding decision-making responsibility or parenting time with respect to the child, the court must only take into account the best interests of the child.
In determining the child’s best interests, the court is required to consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child and shall give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and wellbeing. The legislation contains a list of factors related to the circumstances of a child, which includes for example:
We have previously reported on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Barendregt v Grebliunas. In that case, a mother sought to relocate her children from Kelowna to Telkwa, British Columbia, after separating from the father.
Justice Karakatsanis, writing for the majority, said that the crucial question was whether relocation was in the best interests of the children. Her Honour explained that concerns about parenting time with the child are inevitably engaged in relocation cases because the crux of the dispute is whether it is in the child’s best interests to move notwithstanding the impact on the child’s relationship with the other parent.
The father argued that the trial judge, in allowing the mother’s application to relocate with the children, neglected the maximum contact principle.
Justice Karakatsanis looked at previous court interpretations that had elevated the maximum contact principle to a presumption in favour of equal parenting time. Her Honour thought that such interpretations overreach, stating:
It is worth repeating that what is known as the maximum contact principle is only significant to the extent that it is in the child’s best interests; it must not be used to detract from this inquiry. It is notable that the amended Divorce Act recasts the “maximum contact principle” as “[p]arenting time consistent with best interests of child”: s. 16(6). This shift in language is more neutral and affirms the child-centric nature of the inquiry. Indeed, going forward, the “maximum contact principle” is better referred to as the “parenting time factor”.
The Court, in upholding the trial judge’s conclusion that relocation was in the best interests of the children, said that the question was how to promote the best interests of the children and that courts should only give effect to the parenting time factor to the extent that it is in the best interests of the child.
If you are experiencing parenting time (formerly referred to as child access) disputes, contact the experienced family lawyers at NULaw in Toronto. NULaw and its predecessors have been helping clients in Toronto since 1953. We have extensive knowledge of Ontario and Canadian family law issues and regularly provide honest and practical legal advice on these matters including custody and access. Contact us online or at 416-481-5604 to book a consultation.