ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: February 25, 2025
COURT FILE No.: Toronto - FO -25-00000078-0000
BETWEEN:
Maya Darghawth
Applicant
— AND —
Imtiaz Jaffer
Respondent
Before Justice W. Kapurura
Heard on February 20, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on February 25, 2025
Jake Sandler........................................................................................... counsel for the applicant
Farzana Jiwani....................................................................................... agent for the respondent
Justice W. Kapurura:
Part One - Introduction
[1] The following are the court’s reasons for a decision regarding a motion brought by the applicant (the mother) seeking an order requiring the parties to maintain their child J (the child)’s current school placement for the 2025-2026 academic year. The court heard the motion on February 20, 2025.
[2] The child is four years old. He is in junior kindergarten at Kingsway College School (Kingsway), a private school in Toronto. His tuition per academic year is about $30,000.00.
[3] The parties have a shared parenting arrangement on a 2-2-3 basis pursuant to an out-of-court arrangement agreed between them.
[4] The respondent (the father) did not file a cross-motion. In his materials, he opposed the child’s current placement at Kingsway. He proposed to have the child placed in a public school. In the alternative, he sought an order maintaining the current enrolment, subject to the following conditions (among other conditions):
i. He can terminate the child’s enrolment at Kingsway in the 2026-2027 academic year and onwards.
ii. The mother’s contribution to private school expenses at Kingsway will be increased from five percent to fifty percent.
iii. His contribution to private school expenses will be reduced from ninety-five percent to fifty percent.
[5] At the conclusion of the motion, the court granted the mother’s request to have the child remain at Kingsway for the 2025-2026 academic year. It also ordered the father to contribute ninety-five percent of the private school expenses, with the mother contributing five percent. The court’s reasons were reserved.
[6] The court had to determine the following issues:
i. Is it in the child’s best interests to continue his enrolment at Kingsway for the 2025-2026 academic year?
ii. If it is in his best interests, what proportion should each party pay for the private school expenses?
iii. If not, should the child be enrolled at a public school for the 2025-2026 academic year?
Part Two – Procedural history
[7] The mother issued her application in this proceeding on February 7, 2025. It was unclear when the father was served, as the mother did not file an affidavit of service.
[8] The father had not filed his Answer/Claim on the motion date. He was still within the timelines provided under the Family Law Rules (the Rules) to serve and file it.
[9] On February 10, 2025, the mother filed a Form 14B motion without notice to the father seeking permission to bring an urgent motion regarding the child’s school placement for the 2025-2026 academic year. She claimed that the parties had a deadline of February 21, 2025, to register the child for the 2025-2026 academic year, failing which the school would offer his spot to another student. The school had extended the deadline from February 10, 2025, after the mother notified it that she was bringing an urgent request to the court to address the father’s refusal to agree to the child’s continued enrolment.
[10] Justice S. Meyrick, the case management judge, ordered the mother to serve the father with her motion materials and ordered the parties to return to court on February 12, 2025.
[11] On February 12, 2025, Justice Meyrick determined that the issue of the child’s school was urgent and scheduled a motion date for February 20, 2025. She ordered that the motion be heard by a different judge and provided timelines for filing motion materials.
[12] Both parties complied with the filing timelines for their motion materials.
Part Three – Brief background facts
[13] The mother is 37 years old, and the father is 46 years old.
[14] The parties began living together in January 2020. The child was born in May of the same year.
[15] The parties separated in May 2021.
[16] The father is currently charged with xxxxxx xxxxxxx, xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx against the mother. He denies the charges. Xxx xxxxx xx xxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxx xxx xxxx xxxx. His release conditions prohibit him from having direct contact with her.[1]
[17] In 2022, one of the parties commenced an application in the Superior Court of Justice.[2] The application was subsequently withdrawn after the parties settled all issues out of court.[3] The Superior Court of Justice did not make orders.
[18] The mother is currently unemployed. She was working at ONXpress Inc. as a senior manager until recently. Her annual income in 2023 was $134,584.00. She was laid off due to corporate restructuring. She received a compensation package and is seeking new employment.
[19] The father is employed as a director of strategies with Google Cloud. He has been working in that position since November 2020. In his motion affidavit, he declared that his average annual income for the three most recent years was $1,160,000.00. His yearly income is based on a monthly salary, a quarterly commission bonus and Google stock.
[20] On July 28, 2023, the parties executed an agreement requiring the father to pay the mother a set-off monthly child support amount of $5,000.00.[4]
[21] Following mediation in 2024, the parties executed an agreement regarding the child’s school placement and associated costs. The agreement contains the following clauses:
a. The child will attend Kingsway from junior kindergarten until Grade 8.
b. The mother’s annual income is $153,000.00. The father’s annual income is $1,000,000.00. Notwithstanding their respective incomes, the father shall be responsible for ninety-five percent of all educational expenses. The mother shall be responsible for five percent of all educational expenses.
c. The child’s school attendance at Kingsway is fixed and non-variable without the express written agreement of both parties or through a parenting coordinator when there is a material change in circumstances. A material change in circumstances is defined as:
i. A change in either party’s income by more than thirty-five percent.
ii. Loss of employment.
iii. A significant change in either party’s health status that affects their income earning capacity or the child’s health status.
Part Four – Parties positions
4.1 – The mother’s position
[22] The mother argued that the child’s enrolment at Kingsway was the father’s idea, and he relentlessly advocated for it. She stated that in the 2023-2024 year, the child attended daycare at the YMCA at Alexander Muir Gladstone Public School (Gladstone). The child was eligible to transition to Gladstone for junior kindergarten because of his enrolment in the YMCA daycare. The child enjoyed his daycare experience.
[23] The mother deposed that the father heavily criticized her intention to enrol the child at Gladstone. She provided messages from the parties’ Our Family Wizard communication from March 2024, in which the father told her the following:
Let me make it abundantly clear. I do not consent for (the child) to go to (Gladstone). You should want a better education for (the child) at this earlier stage of life...(Gladstone) is a terrible school with crumbling facilities and pathetic excuses for teachers because all the good ones left for other schools or better jobs. …I will, however, consider Keele street..I’d also consider Royal St George’s, Hudson or any other private school immediately south or north of Bloor street in the city. While I can appreciate the cost and the associated commute (of private school), I’m willing to take the hit for the sake of his education..
[24] The mother claimed that the father had advocated for the child to attend private school for years and maintained that he had the financial resources to support it. She stated that before their mediation in 2024, he provided her with a list of private schools for consideration. The list included Montessori schools such as The Clover School, Humberside Montessori School, and High Park Gardens Montessori. It also included several other private schools, such as Hudson College and Kingsway.
[25] The mother stated that she signed the agreement regarding the child’s enrolment at Kingsway to ensure the child’s educational stability. She found the concept and implementation of educational stability for the child to be appealing and in the child’s best interests. She stated that she relocated her home to live closer to Kingsway to ensure she was closer to the child’s school.
[26] The mother said she reviewed their written agreement regarding the child’s school with her lawyer before signing it. She noted that the father understood the agreement because he is well-educated and successful in his professional career.[5] Her evidence was that he began questioning and challenging the agreement just one day after they signed it. He wrote her a message a day after signing it saying that he did not agree to pay for the hot lunch program.
[27] The mother deposed that recently, the father unilaterally made it clear that he would not support the child’s continued enrolment at Kingsway. She provided a message she received from him on January 1, 2025, stating:
(The child)’s school will change per your behaviour in filing criminal charges which has cost me the equivalent of his university tuition. You should be ashamed of yourself. That indeed is a material change in financial circumstances and I am not discussing this further. (The child) will NOT be attending (Kingsway) moving forward after JK is completed and I will be notifying the school as such.
[28] On January 8, 2025, the father sent another message to the mother stating:
(The child) is leaving (Kingsway). I don’t know what planet you live on but you forcing me to waste over $100k on criminal defence fees is the exact reason why (the child) loses out on attending a fantastic school. ..And that is a material change. … He is not attending (Kingsway) effective end of this term.
4.2 – The father’s position
[29] The father said the child should attend Keele Street Public School (Keele Street) in September 2025. In the alternative, he would agree to the child remaining at Kingsway provided that his contribution towards the cost of private school is reduced to fifty percent. He also sought the right to terminate the child’s attendance at Kingsway for the 2026-2027 academic year and onwards.
[30] The father stated that, since separation, his parenting relationship with the mother had been increasingly complex. He accused her of creating an untenable situation where co-parenting is impossible.
[31] The father noted that his agreement with the mother regarding the child’s school contained several errors. However, he admitted that the parties agreed to have the child attend Kingsway until Grade 8.
[32] The father deposed that when he agreed to pay for Kingsway, he had budgeted the child’s tuition on his expected earnings and expenses. He stated that after the agreement was signed, he experienced a significant expense increase and a significant decrease in his income.
[33] The father provided the following factors as impacting his ability to pay for private school:
a. He took a short-term disability leave, which started on February 14, 2025. He blamed the ‘turbulence’ of his current legal proceedings and the stress it caused on him.
b. His annual income is based on a monthly salary, a quarterly commission bonus, and Google stock. A significant amount of his yearly income is based on his commission. The commission is based on meeting targets. Due to his short-term disability leave, he will not meet his targets. His anticipated income in 2025 will be $475,000.00.
c. He has not been promoted due to distractions associated with this family law proceeding.
d. In September 2025, the monthly mortgage payments on his house will increase from $4,600.00 to $6,500.00.
e. He is incurring significant legal fees on both criminal and family matters. He expected the fees on his criminal matter to exceed $100,000.00. In the family matter, he already spent about $23,000.00. He asserted that these combined amounts could have easily paid for the child’s tuition for several years.
f. He might lose his job at Google Cloud due to criminal charges as he now faces restrictions in terms of entering the U.S.A.
g. The parties’ current agreement regarding child support payments expires on April 28, 2025. His monthly child support payments may be revised upwards, given that the mother recently lost her job. He is currently paying the mother a set-off monthly child support amount of $5,000.00.
h. There have been numerous layoffs at Google which makes him extremely apprehensive about continuing his employment with Google.
[34] The father noted that his proposed school, Keele Street, is in his catchment area. It would be a five-minute walk to the school from his home. He further noted that it would be in the child’s best interests to attend Keele Street and remain there so he could develop long-lasting friendships, community, and consistency in educational expectations.
Part Five – Legal considerations
5.1 – Motions for temporary orders
[35] In S.M.O. v M.J.O., 2022 ONSC 5084, the court summarized the following legal principles:
[26] On motions for temporary parenting orders, generally the status quo will be maintained absent compelling reasons requiring change to meet the child’s best interests. See Grant v Turgeon at para 15. The court’s responsibility is to focus on the short-term needs of the child and minimize possible disruptions. The court must try to provide the child with certainty and stability in an environment that is safe and secure for them. See MPDS v JMS, 2022 ONSC 1212 at para 38; Rashid v Avanesov, 2022 ONSC 3401 at para 23.
[27] A temporary motion is meant to provide a reasonably acceptable solution on an expeditious basis for a problem that will be fully canvassed at later conferences or resolved at a trial. The status quo should be maintained until trial unless there is material evidence that the child’s best interests require an immediate change. See Coe v Tope, 2014 ONSC 4002 at para 25; Costello v McLean, 2014 ONSC 7332 at para 11.
[36] In Shokoufimogiman v. Bozorgi, 2022 ONSC 5057 at para 36, Justice M. Kraft noted that it is particularly difficult to make a determination with respect to parenting on a motion without the resources and evidence available in a trial to find facts and assess the credibility and reliability of the parties.
5.2 – Enforcement of a separation agreement
[37] In Walton v Walton, 2022 ONCJ 394, the court found it had jurisdiction to enforce a separation agreement under subrule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules. In that case, the terms of the separation agreement regarding parenting time were incorporated into a court order on June 7, 2022, in advance of the motion. Despite the order, a parent continued to breach the terms of parenting time.
[38] Subrule 1(8) only applies to court orders, not to agreements. A party can move to incorporate the agreement into a court order. See: Ashley v. Kachko, 2024 ONSC 2225.
[39] The court has no jurisdiction to vary a separation agreement that has not been filed with the court and incorporated into a court order. The proper procedure to change it is to bring an application and ask the court to consider the agreement as a factor. See: Andrew v. Andrew, 2008 CarswellSask 65 (Sask. Q.B.). [emphasis added]
5.3 – Change of school
[40] Compelling and cogent evidence must show that a change in schools is in a child’s best interests. See: J.E.S. v. S.S., 2020 ONSC 6064.
[41] When a child is already enrolled in a program of education the starting point for the determination is clear: absent compelling circumstances, students will continue their education in September at the school at which they were enrolled in June. Disrupting a child’s school placement is to be avoided. School is often the most stable and neutral place for children whose parents are transitioning from one home to two homes. The court needs to ask if there are compelling circumstances that justify a change in school pending a final custody and access decision. See: D.B. v. M.R.B., 2019 ONSC 4925.
[42] The onus is on the parent trying to change school. If there is a shared parenting arrangement, courts should be reluctant to interfere unless parents cannot resolve the issue. The change must be in the child’s best interests. The court must consider factors that impact on the stability of the child. It should look at how long the child has gone to current school, is there any prospect of parent moving in the near future, where the child was born and raised, whether a move will require new child care providers or other unsettling features and decisions parents made prior to separation about schooling and any problems with the current school. See: Askalan v. Taleb, 2012 ONSC 4746.
[43] The general principles guiding the court in deciding where a child shall attend school when the parties disagree were set out by Audet, J. in Thomas v. Osika, 2018 ONSC 2712 at para. 37 as follows:
The decision as to the choice of school that a child should attend, when the parents disagree, is ultimately a matter of judicial discretion. However, a number of general principles have emerged from the caselaw to assist the decision-maker in making the decision in the child's best interests. They can be summarized as follows:
a. Sub-section 28(1)(b) of the Children's Law Reform Act specifically empowers the court to determine any matter incidental to custody rights. The issue of a child's enrolment in a school program must be considered as being incidental to or ancillary to the rights of custody (Deschenes v. Medwayosh, 2016 ONCJ 567);
b. It is implicit that a parent's plan for the child's education, and his or her capacity and commitment to carry out the plan are important elements affecting a child's best interests. In developing a child's educational plan, the unique needs, circumstances, aptitudes and attributes of the child, must be taken into account (Bandas v. Demirdache, 2013 ONCJ 679);
c. When considering school placement, one factor to be considered is the ability of the parent to assist the child with homework and the degree to which the parent can participate in the child's educational program (Deschenes v. Medwayosh, 2016 ONCJ 567);
d. The emphasis must be placed on the interests of the child, and not on the interests or rights of the parents (Gordon v. Goertz);
e. The importance of a school placement or educational program will promote and maintain a child's cultural and linguistic heritage (Perron v. Perron, 2012 ONCA 811);
f. Factors which may be taken into account by the court in determining the best interests of the child include assessing any impact on the stability of the child. This may include examining whether there is any prospect of one of the parties moving in the near future; where the child was born and raised; whether a move will mean new child care providers or other unsettling features (Askalan v. Taleb, 2012 ONSC 4746);
g. The court will also look to any decisions that were made by the parents prior to the separation or at the time of separation with respect to schooling (Askalan v. Taleb, 2012 ONSC 4746);
h. Any problems with the proposed schools will be considered (Askalan v. Taleb, 2012 ONSC 4746);
i. A decision as to the choice of school should be made on its own merits and based, in part, on the resources that each school offered in relation to a child's needs, rather than on their proximity to the residence of one parent or the other, or the convenience that his attendance at the nearest school would entail (Wilson v. Wilson, 2015 ONSC 479);
j. Third party ranking systems, such as the Fraser Institute's, should not factor into a Court's decision. These systems of ranking do not take into consideration the best interest of the particular child in a family law context (Wilson v. Wilson, 2015 ONSC 479);
k. If an aspect of a child's life, such as school placement, is to be disrupted by an order of the court, there must be good reason for the court to do so. Thus, before a court will order a child to transfer schools, there must be convincing evidence that a change of schools is in the child's best interests (Perron v. Perron, 2012 ONCA 811);
l. Custodial parents should be entrusted with making the decision as to which school children should attend. When a sole custodial parent has always acted in the best interest of a child, there should be no reason to doubt that this parent will act in the best interest of the child when deciding on a school (Adams v. Adams, 2016 ONCJ 431);
m. Those cases are very fact-driven. The courts are not pronouncing on what is best for all children in a general sense but rather deciding what is in the best interests of this child before the court (Deschenes v. Medwayosh, 2016 ONCJ 567).
Part Six – Analysis
[44] The court reviewed the materials filed by each party in support of their position.
[45] It is undisputed that both parents value the child’s educational needs. However, they differed on how to meet those needs at this interim stage in this litigation.
[46] The onus was on the father to prove that a change in the child’s school was in the best interests of the child. See: Askalan v. Taleb (supra).
[47] Even though the father questioned the validity of certain portions of the parties’ agreement regarding the child’s enrolment at Kingsway, the following facts were undisputed:
a. The parties agreed to have the child attend Kingsway.
b. The enrolment was to be from junior kindergarten until Grade 8.
c. The child has been enrolled at Kingsway since September 2024 to the present.
d. Kingsway was meeting the child’s educational needs. The father described it as a “fantastic school.” A report card from the school showed that the child was:
i. Understanding most of the mathematical concepts.
ii. Progressing exceptionally well in communicating with peers in a variety of ways and for a variety of purposes.
iii. Beginning to see the benefits of solving problems.
iv. Starting to show independence and self-regulation.
v. Progressing well in developing the skills and strategies to help him navigate social relationships.
[48] The father advanced his financial circumstances as the main reason for his decision to change the child’s school. One issue that was striking was his lack of financial and related disclosure. He failed to provide the basic materials in support of his position as follows:
a. He did not file a financial statement in support of his claims advanced at this motion. The court understood that he was still within his timelines to file his Answer/Claim to the application. The court also understood that he had a limited opportunity to prepare his materials for this motion, given that the mother brought it on an urgent basis. However, at the very least, he should have filed a financial statement in support of his financial claims as they formed the basis of his position on changing the child’s school.
b. He did not provide materials in support of his claims about his anticipated earnings. He made several claims about how his income was structured and how he anticipated not meeting his targets. However, he provided no documentation about the history of his earnings and how he previously met those targets. All his claims were based on his word of mouth. A chart he provided showing Google's earnings forecast provided only general information and was not specific to his employment situation.
c. He claimed that he had taken a short-term disability leave from work as recommended by both his doctor and therapist. When questioned by the court on whether he had provided the medical information to the mother, his lawyer acknowledged that the materials had been sent to the mother’s lawyer by email only five minutes before the hearing of this motion. The father acknowledged that he received the medical materials on February 11, 2025, and had not provided them to the mother until just before the hearing of this motion.
d. The mother deposed that she previously sent him several requests for financial disclosure before she filed her application, but he ignored them.
e. The mother provided a letter from her lawyer dated June 13, 2024, in which the following materials were requested from him (with a deadline of July 5, 2024):
i. Updated sworn financial statement.
ii. 2022 and 2023 notices of assessment.
iii. 2022 and 2023 income tax returns.
[49] Where a party fails to provide full financial disclosure relating to their income, the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference and to impute income to them. See: Szitas v. Szitas, 2012 ONSC 1548; Woofenden v. Woofenden, 2018 ONSC 4583. In Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450, the court stated that:
[11] The most basic obligation in family law is the duty to disclose financial information. This requirement is immediate and ongoing.
[12] Failure to abide by this fundamental principle impedes the progress of the action, causes delay and generally acts to the disadvantage of the opposite party. It also impacts the administration of justice. Unnecessary judicial time is spent and the final adjudication is stalled.
[13] Financial disclosure is automatic. It should not require court orders – let alone three - to obtain production.
[50] The evidence provided at this preliminary stage of the proceeding supported drawing an adverse inference against the father given his failure to provide financial disclosure. The court drew an adverse inference against him and dismissed his claims regarding his financial circumstances that were not supported by documentary evidence.
[51] The court found that, at this preliminary stage of the proceeding, the father appeared to be disingenuous in his approach to the issues before the court:
a. Only one day after he signed the agreement about the child’s attendance at Kingsway, he complained about the cost of hot lunch. The court agreed with the mother that the cost of hot lunch pales off compared to the cost of tuition.
b. He complained about legal costs associated with his criminal and family matters as part of his request to change the child’s school. However, he was charged around 2023. The criminal charges pre-dated the execution of the parties’ agreement regarding the child’s attendance at Kingsway. He ought to have been aware of the potential legal costs associated with the criminal matter when he executed the agreement in August 2024 since he had a criminal lawyer at the time.
c. His affidavit stated that he might lose his job due to the current criminal charges as he now had restrictions to travel to the U.S.A. A review of the materials showed that he previously made a similar argument. A letter from his criminal lawyer dated November 7, 2023, addressed to the mother’s lawyer at the time noted that there was a risk that the father would have his employment terminated or suspended due to the criminal charges.
d. The parties executed their agreement regarding private school on August 14, 2024. Only four months later, in January 2025, he was reneging from the agreement and demanding that the child’s school be changed. The court agreed with the mother that the ink was barely dry, and he was already abandoning his commitment to the child’s private school arrangements.
e. The financial information he provided about his earnings was inconsistent, as follows:
i. The parties’ agreement dated August 14, 2024, showed his yearly annual income baseline of $1,000,000.00.
ii. An endorsement by Justice Meyrick, dated February 12, 2025, noted that he was earning approximately $1,500,000.00 at the time of the agreement, and was now earning approximately $800,000.00.
iii. His motion affidavit reported that his average income for the past three years had been $1,100,000.00. In the same affidavit, he stated that he anticipated earning $475,000.00 in 2025. Further down in the same affidavit, he reported that he anticipated earning $300,000.00 in 2025. He filed no materials in support of such a significant cut in his earnings. The question remained: If he was earning between $1,000,000.00 and $1,500,000.00 in August 2024 when he executed the agreement what was the evidence at this early stage of the proceeding supporting his position that he anticipated earning $300,000.00 in 2025? The court did not accept his word without documents.
f. On February 2, 2025, the mother wrote to him asking why he was not responding to her lawyer about his plans to change the child’s school. He responded by stating, “... again, I will not be responding to your lawyer. You should have thought about the fees before you filed those fake charges.”
g. He appeared to blame the mother for his financial circumstances due to his criminal charges and her application before this court.
[52] The limited evidence provided at this interim stage raised concerns about coercive and controlling behaviour by the father against the mother. The court was also concerned that the father might be using the issue of the child’s school placement as a tool to control the mother. The evidence showed that when he is unhappy about any parenting-related issues, he threatens to stop paying for the child’s tuition at Kingsway, as confirmed by the following:
a. On August 28, 2024, he threatened to stop paying the child’s tuition at Kingsway if the mother did not consider his position regarding the issue of his bail variation.
b. On October 9, 2024, during a discussion on March break parenting time, he provided her with an ultimatum that either the March break would be split between the parents, or he would refuse to pay the child’s Kingsway tuition.
c. He refused to correspond with the mother’s counsel, using inappropriate language against the lawyer. He referred to the lawyer as an “inexperienced junior” in one message. In another message, he told the mother that he was under no legal obligation to respond to her lawyer.
[53] The evidence filed at this interim stage also supported the mother’s allegation that the father was acting unilaterally in changing the child’s school and was employing self-help tactics at the expense of the child’s best interests. He did not consult with her about his plans to change the child’s school. Instead, he informed her in the strongest terms that the child’s school would be changed in the 2025-2026 academic year.
[54] A parent who engages in self-help tactics despite the best interests of the child will generally raise serious questions about their own parenting skills and judgment. See: Izyuk v. Bilousov (supra); Clement v. Clement, 2010 ONSC 1113; Rifai v. Green, 2014 ONSC 1377. In Fallis v. Decker, 2013 ONSC 5206 at para 26, the court stated that parents take unilateral action at their own peril. The court simply cannot sanction self-help in circumstances where the best interests of children may potentially have been jeopardized.
[55] It is also striking that the father was advocating for a change in school for the 2025-2026 academic year, yet his plans regarding his proposed school were not confirmed. When the court questioned him on whether he had confirmation from Keele Street that they had a spot available for the child’s enrolment for the 2025-2026 academic year, he responded that he did not have the confirmation.
[56] Given the dearth of information provided by the father, it will be destabilizing for the child to change his current school. It will also prejudice the mother as she relocated closer to the child’s school. As stated above, the father’s approach and conduct at this interim stage were very concerning.
[57] The father contributed ninety-five percent towards the child’s private school expenses in the 2024-2025 academic year in accordance with the parties’ agreement signed in August 2024. The mother contributed five percent. He asked the court to reduce his contribution to fifty percent as an alternative request. As stated above, there is a lack of transparency regarding his financial circumstances. The court decided to maintain the status quo regarding the parties’ contributions to the private school expenses and dismissed the father’s request.
Part Seven - Conclusion
[58] The court understood that the child had only been enrolled at Kingsway for one year and was still in junior kindergarten. However, the court found that the father failed to discharge his onus on proving that the change in school was in the child’s best interests.
[59] The court, therefore, made the following order at the conclusion of the motion:
a. The mother has permission to register the child for school at Kingsway for the 2025-2026 academic year without the requirement for the father’s signature or consent. The father’s consent is dispensed with.
b. The child shall remain enrolled at Kingsway. Any change of school shall require a further order of the court.
c. The father shall contribute ninety-five percent of all educational expenses for the private school. The mother shall contribute five percent of the educational expenses.
[60] The mother was the successful party. If she seeks her costs of this proceeding, she shall serve and file written costs submissions by March 11, 2025. The father will then have until March 25, 2025, to serve and file his responding costs submissions. The submissions shall not exceed five pages, not including any bill of costs or offer to settle. Written submissions shall be typed or written legibly, with double spaces between the lines and characters of at least 12-point size.
Released: February 25, 2025
Signed: Justice Wiri Kapurura
[1] The father’s release conditions were not provided to the court. He has not yet filed his Form 35.1 affidavit.
[2] Very little detail was provided regarding the Superior Court matter, including who commenced the application.
[3] It was not clear how the issues were settled. However, they executed a parenting agreement on July 28, 2023. The agreement was not provided to the court at this motion.
[4] A copy of the agreement was not provided to the court.
[5] It was not clear whether the father sought independent legal advice.
