J. Herman

The parties signed Minutes of Settlement regarding parenting, which were incorporated into a final order.

Shortly after, the father brought a motion alleging the mother unilaterally decided to home-school their child without consultation, contrary to the order.

The mother argued she had final decision-making authority and had consulted prior to the order.

The court found the parties were not ad idem when signing the Minutes and that the mother's interpretation of the consultation requirement was flawed.

The court exercised its discretion to rescind the unentered final order, reinstating a previous temporary order requiring online schooling, and directed the mother to immediately enroll the child in school.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking an order that the children attend in-person school or, alternatively, that he be granted equal parenting time to assist with their remote learning.

The applicant mother, who had de facto and legal custody, had enrolled the children in remote learning due to concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic and one child's history of asthma.

The court found no compelling evidence that the mother's decision was contrary to the children's best interests and declined to interfere with her decision-making authority.

The father's alternative request for equal parenting time was also dismissed, as a change in the learning platform did not justify altering the long-standing parenting regime.