A.G. v. J.W., 2025 ONCJ 634

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2025 12 01

COURT FILE No.: Sault Ste. Marie 44/25

BETWEEN:

A.G. - Applicant

--- AND ---

J.W. - Respondent

Before Justice Heather-Ann Mendes

Focused Hearing Heard on October 6 and 7, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on December 1, 2025

Murdoch Carter -- counsel for the applicant

Kristi Whitfield -- counsel for the respondent

MENDES J.:

Background

[1] Pursuant to a final order made on October 18, 2023 in a Child, Youth and Family Services Act proceeding, a deemed custody order was made pursuant to section 102, that the child A.W. born [...], 2020 be placed in the joint custody of the father, J.W. and the mother, A.G.

[2] The parents were to consult each other prior to making any decision affecting the best interests of the child. Should the parties be unable to agree upon a decision affecting the best interests of the child, the father, J.W. shall be entitled to have final decision-making responsibility and either party may bring the matter before a qualified mediator or before this court, upon 30 days notice for determination of the issue.

[3] Further, pursuant to the final order, the parents have shared parenting-time with the child on a week about basis, with the exchanges to be on Sundays.

[4] The parties followed the shared parenting-time order from October 2023 through September 2024 when the child commenced school in Elliot Lake. The father advised the mother of his intention to enroll the child in school in Elliot Lake in September 2023 and again in January 2024. The mother objected. The mother sought that the child be enrolled in school in Sault Ste. Marie. As the father had final decision-making responsibility, he enrolled the child in school in Elliot Lake.

[5] In December 2024, the mother commenced a court proceeding to address the schooling issue for the child as well as primary residence. The focused hearing was heard on October 6, 2025 and October 7, 2025.

Position of the Parties

[6] The mother seeks an order that she have final decision-making responsibility for the child. That the child primarily reside with her in Sault Ste. Marie and that the father have parenting-time with the child two to three weekends per month with the weekends to be extended on school professional developmental days and holidays.

[7] The mother proposes that the parties each have a week with the child during the December holiday break; that the father have the child for two consecutive March Breaks and that she have every third March Break and that week-about parenting-time resume during the summer months of July and August.

[8] The father seeks that decision-making responsibility remain the same and that he have primary residence of the child. The father proposes essentially the same parenting-time for the mother as she proposes for him. The father proposes a sharing of holiday time but that the mother have more time during the summer months.

[9] Both parents agree to share the transportation for the child for parenting-time and that neither of them pay child support given their respective incomes are presently from social services sources and given the transportation costs associated with exercising parenting-time.

Evidence

[10] The mother and father each testified at the focused hearing. They both called one support witness. The mother called the maternal grandmother, and the father called the paternal grandmother.

[11] The parties were involved in a child protection proceeding commenced by the Children's Aid Society of Algoma in 2020. The child was initially placed in the care of the Society in October 2020. She was then placed with the maternal grandmother in December 2020. In January 2022 the child was placed in the joint care of the parents, however in February 2022 the child was placed in the sole care of the father.

[12] During the course of the child protection proceeding and while the child was placed with the father, who resided in Blind River, Ontario. In July 2023 the father and the child relocated to Elliot Lake, Ontario. Both moves were prior to the finalization of the child protection proceeding and the final order of October 18, 2023 for shared parenting-time.

[13] The mother lives in Sault Ste. Marie and she has two other children that reside in her care. She has a child who is 13 years old and shares time with her and that child's father, as well as another child who is 22 months old and resides in her fulltime care. All three children are very closely bonded.

[14] It is the mother's evidence that the father informed her of his intention to enrol the child in school in Elliot Lake and she objected as she wanted the child to be enrolled in school in Sault Ste. Marie. The mother agreed in cross examination that the father raised the issue of the child's schooling with her in September 2023, one year before the child was to commence school. She also agreed that the father attempted to discuss the issue in January 2024 and July 2024.

[15] The mother proposed that the child attend school one week in Elliot Lake and one week in Sault Ste. Marie but the father did not agree. The mother believed that this proposal would not negatively impact the child or her education as the child was only in junior kindergarten which is not mandatory.

[16] It is the mother's evidence that because of the child being enrolled in school in September 2024, this effectively ended her week-about parenting time. The father offered that the mother have parenting-time with the child from Friday to Sunday, however she declined to take the child as she does not have a driver's licence or a vehicle and she relies upon her mother, father or friend for transportation and they have their own obligations and responsibilities. However, in cross examination, the mother agreed that she would be responsible to transport the child twice a month when the parties were following the week-about arrangement.

[17] As a result of the child attending school and as the mother believed, the father withholding the child, she only had two visits with the child from September 2024 to June 2025. The mother had time with the child at Christmas 2024 and over Easter 2025 when the father brought the child to Sault Ste. Marie. During the summer months of July and August 2025, the mother had the majority of parenting-time with the child.

[18] The mother has the support of her family which includes her mother, father, brother and best friend. She has also developed a close connection with members of her church and these positive influences have helped her achieve stability in her life.

[19] The mother proposes that the child would attend the same school as her older sibling and that she be enrolled in extracurricular activities in Sault Ste. Marie. In addition, the child's nurse practitioner, dentist and optometrist are all located in Sault Ste. Marie.

[20] The mother raised concerns about the child while in the father's care, including that the child sleeps without underwear, the child having irritation to her private regions which was referred to the Children's Aid Society and police, the child exhibiting signs of heat stroke on two occasions, the child having a large sore on her back which the father drained with a syringe and the child missing 48 days of school.

[21] The concern regarding irritation to the child's genital area was referred to the Children's Aid Society and the police, however the Society did not open a file, and no criminal charges were laid.

[22] The father's evidence is that the parties were involved with the Children's Aid Society of Algoma from 2020 to 2023. The child was placed in the father's care in February 2023 and he was residing in Blind River at this time in a one bedroom apartment. He was on the waitlist for a larger housing unit in the North Shore area and he was offered a two bedroom unit in Elliot Lake in July 2023. At this time the mother was having visits with the child once a week in Sault Ste. Marie.

[23] The father testified that the child adjusted well to residing in Elliot Lake and she has flourished in his care. At the time the final order for shared parenting was made in October 2023 he and the child were already living in Elliot Lake and this was known to the mother.

[24] With respect to the enrollment of the child in school, the father originally reached out to the mother in September 2023 about enrolling the child in Elliot Lake and to obtain her thoughts about French Immersion. This was a year in advance of when the child was to commence school.

[25] The father raised the issue again with the mother in January 2024 via text message. The father agrees that the mother stated that she wanted the child enrolled in school in Sault Ste. Marie and sought to put off the discussion until summer 2024. The father again raised the issue of enrolling the child in school July 2024 and did not receive a reply.

[26] The father advised the mother on September 1, 2024 that the child would be commencing school the following Wednesday and inquired if the mother would be picking the child upon the Friday and returning her on Sunday. The mother did not pick up the child for her parenting-time and her reply to the father was that the court would decide the issue. The mother did not commence this court proceeding until December 2024.

[27] The father attempted to arrange parenting-time for the mother after the child commenced school. According to the father, between September 2024 and September 2025, the mother had parenting-time with the child over the Christmas Break, March Break and the summer months of July and August. This was the only parenting-time the mother requested. The father alleged that during the time the mother had the child over the summer he could not contact the child as the mother blocked his number.

[28] The father denied the allegations that were made to the Children's Aid Society and the police regarding any sexual impropriety towards the child. The Society closed their file after investigation and no criminal charges were laid.

[29] The father again tried to arrange parenting-time for the mother after the summer visits when the child commenced school in September 2025. Again, the mother's reply was to wait for the court to determine the issue.

[30] The father is satisfied that the child's medical provider is in Sault Ste. Marie and he is prepared to travel to accommodate the child's medical needs. The child has access to emergency medical services in Elliot Lake and her dentist is located in Elliot Lake.

[31] Regarding the child having a cyst on her back, the father denies undertaking a medical procedure to remove it. The father described the lesion as a pimple. He used peroxide and drained the lesion by removing the puss with a blunt syringe. The child also had a medical appointment a few days later and he intended to address it then. The father advised the medical practitioner of what he did with the lesion.

[32] The father's evidence is that during the summer months the mother brought the child to the medical practitioner on a number of occasions. The father also gave evidence that he was removed as a contact for the medical provider by the mother so he could not obtain any information until he provided the court order of October 18, 2023 to the medical practitioner.

[33] The father also described a further issue in which the mother arranged for the child to receive her 18-month immunization shot in the summer of 2025 when the father had already arranged for the child to receive the shot a year earlier through Algoma Public Health. The father confirmed with the medical practitioner that there was no medical concern with the child receiving the vaccination twice.

[34] With respect to the child allegedly having heatstroke, the father only learned of this issue or concern after reading the mother's affidavit in preparation for the focused hearing.

[35] The father agreed that he was aware that junior kindergarten was not mandatory, however he felt that it was in the child's best interests that she be enrolled in school on a full-time basis given the benefits of the child attending school both scholastically and socially and that any delay in enrolling her would be detrimental.

[36] The father has a support system in Elliot Lake which includes his parents and great aunts. The child has also made friends, developed relationships and is thriving socially. The father has a daily routine for the child in terms of bedtime and hygiene and he has enrolled the child in Girl Guides which she attends weekly. The father attempted to arrange counselling for the child, however the mother did not agree to enrol the child until after this court matter was settled.

[37] Regarding the child missing 48 days of school, the father's evidence was that the child never attended daycare and this was the first time that she was exposed to other children and germs so she was sick frequently. If the child was ill, he would keep her home rather than send her to school and expose other children.

[38] In cross examination the father agreed that the week-about parenting arrangement was beneficial to the child and that he did nothing to change the order regarding parenting-time either before or after the child commenced school in September 2024.

[39] The father also agreed in cross examination that it is beneficial for the child to have a relationship with the mother as well as her siblings, but he did not believe that it was beneficial for the child to attend two different schools. The father also confirmed that he picked up the child after every week from the mother and that he has access to a vehicle through his mother, so he is able to continue to share the transportation.

[40] Both the maternal grandmother and paternal grandmother testified at trial. Both grandparents gave evidence of the close relationship they have with the child and the support that they provide to each of the parents.

Law

[41] The Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 provides the following:

Best interests of the child

24 (1) In making a parenting order or contact order with respect to a child, the court shall only take into account the best interests of the child in accordance with this section.

Primary consideration

(2) In determining the best interests of a child, the court shall consider all factors related to the circumstances of the child, and, in doing so, shall give primary consideration to the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being. 2020, c. 25, Sched. 1, s. 6.

Factors

(3) Factors related to the circumstances of a child include,

(a) the child's needs, given the child's age and stage of development, such as the child's need for stability;

(b) the nature and strength of the child's relationship with each parent, each of the child's siblings and grandparents and any other person who plays an important role in the child's life;

(c) each parent's willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child's relationship with the other parent;

(d) the history of care of the child;

(e) the child's views and preferences, giving due weight to the child's age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

(f) the child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage, including Indigenous upbringing and heritage;

(g) any plans for the child's care;

(h) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to care for and meet the needs of the child;

(i) the ability and willingness of each person in respect of whom the order would apply to communicate and co-operate, in particular with one another, on matters affecting the child;

(j) any family violence and its impact on, among other things,

(i) the ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and

(ii) the appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to co-operate on issues affecting the child; and

(k) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.

Past conduct

(5) In determining what is in the best interests of the child, the court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of any person, unless the conduct is relevant to the exercise of the person's decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact with respect to the child.

Allocation of parenting time

(6) In allocating parenting time, the court shall give effect to the principle that a child should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child.

Right to ask for and receive information

(8) Unless a court orders otherwise, a person to whom decision-making responsibility or parenting time has been granted with respect to a child under a parenting order is entitled to ask for and, subject to any applicable laws, receive information about the child's well-being, including in relation to the child's health and education, from,

(a) any other person to whom decision-making responsibility or parenting time has been granted with respect to the child under a parenting order; and

(b) any other person who is likely to have such information.

Variation of orders

29 (1) A court shall not make an order under this Part that varies a parenting order or contact order unless there has been a material change in circumstances that affects or is likely to affect the best interests of the child who is the subject of the order.

Relocation

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the relocation of a child in accordance with section 39.4 constitutes a material change in circumstances unless the relocation had been prohibited by a court, in which case the relocation does not, in itself, constitute a material change in circumstances.

Analysis

[42] Before the court is a young child who is clearly loved by both of her parents, her siblings and her extended family.

[43] The parents both had struggles in 2020 which resulted in the involvement of the child protection agency. Both parents made significant gains to address the child protection concerns such that the child was placed in the care of the father in February 2022 while the father was residing in Blind River, Ontario.

[44] During the time that the child was placed with the father in Blind River, the mother exercised parenting-time in Sault Ste. Marie once a week. The mother continued to make gains such that the child protection proceeding concluded on October 18, 2023 resulting in a final order that provided for joint decision-making responsibility for the child with the father to make the final decision and the parents share time with the child on a week-about basis. At the time the final order was made, the father was residing in Elliot Lake and the mother residing in Sault Ste. Marie.

[45] The parents commendably were able to share parenting-time with the child from October 2023 to September 2024 and for the most part they were able to co-parent. It was not until this proceeding was commenced due to the child being enrolled in school in Elliot Lake and the week-about arrangement ending that there were any concerns raised by the mother about the father's care of the child.

[46] The mother disagrees with the father's decision to enroll the child in school in Elliot Lake. The father first raised the issue of the child attending school in Elliot Lake in September 2023, a year in advance of the child commencing school. The father raised the issue once again in January 2024 when it was time to register the child. The mother's response was that she wished to enroll the child in school in Sault Ste. Marie.

[47] When the parties did not agree as to where the child should attend school, the father's evidence was that the mother alluded to the court determining the issue. The mother was well aware of the father's intention to enrol the child in school in Elliot Lake in September 2023 and she was made aware again in January 2024 and she did not do anything to address the issue. She was made aware again of the father's intention to enroll the child in school in July 2024 and it was not until December 2024 that she started the court proceeding.

[48] The mother was also aware that the final order regarding decision-making responsibility allowed for the father to make the final decision in the event of a disagreement and given that she and the father were not in agreement about schooling the final decision would fall to him to decide.

[49] Given that the father raised the issue of the child's schooling in September 2023, January 2024 and July 2024, it should not have come as a shock to the mother that as of September 2024 when school commenced, that the parenting-time regime may have to be changed or adjusted.

[50] I do not agree with the mother's assertion that the father unilaterally changed her parenting-time with the child by enrolling the child in school. The mother chose not to exercise her parenting-time with the child from September 2024 through to December 2024.

[51] While the mother may not reside in Elliot Lake, she could have taken the child on the weekends or she could have made arrangements to have some sort of parenting-time with the child during this period of time as the transportation of the child was shared. Typically, the mother would pick up the child at the beginning of her parenting week and the father would pick up the child at the beginning of his parenting week.

[52] Some sort of restructuring of the mother's parenting-time with the child could have been crafted as opposed to an all or nothing approach that the mother appears to have taken. In that, if she was not going to have the child in her care for a week, it made no sense to her to take the child for just a few days over a weekend.

[53] The evidence is such that I find that the mother was evasive in addressing the matter of school enrollment for the child. The father raised the issue multiple times, the mother disagreed and her reply at times was to have the court determine the issue.

[54] The mother did not suggest the parties attend mediation as contemplated in the final order nor did she issue or commence a court proceeding until well over a year later from when the issue was first raised, notwithstanding that she knew the father's intention and she was aware that he had final decision-making responsibility since October 18, 2023.

[55] The mother alleges the father is not appropriately parenting the child and raises issues with the father's level of care. I do not find this to be the case. The father has attempted to co-parent with the mother and include her in decisions. Conversely, the mother raised concerns about the child coming to her care with heatstroke on two occasions, however she never raised this to the father directly at the time that it occurred.

[56] Further, while the mother raises concern about the lesion on the child's back and genitals as well as the father's treatment of the lesion on the back, the father's evidence was that the child was seeing her medical provider in a few days and he was going to address the concern then. However, the appointment was cancelled by the mother as the child was in her care at the time and then the father was removed as a contact from the medical provider and unsubstantiated allegations were made to the Society.

[57] What is concerning to the court is that rather than discussing these issues with the father and attempting to address them as coparents, high handed tactics appear to have been engaged such as removing the father as a contact when he clearly has, by way of a court order, final decision-making responsibility for the child.

[58] Even more concerning is that the child received two doses of her 18-month vaccination after the mother had the medical practitioner provide them to the child while the child was in her care. The mother undertook this rather than inquiring of the father whether or not they were in fact outstanding. While there was no detrimental side affect or impact to the child, this is the sort of behaviour that the court does not condone when it potentially could have significantly impacted the health and wellbeing of this young child.

[59] Despite the issues which arose over the summer, the father, to his credit, has continued to attempt to coparent with the mother and recently sought her input regarding the child attending counselling, to which the mother did not agree and wanted to wait for this court's determination regarding the issue of the child's residency and school.

[60] Regarding the child's attendance at school and her missing 48 days due to the illness, while I accept the father's evidence the child was ill a considerable amount of time given her first time attending school and she had never before attended daycare, this year should be the exception in terms of the child's high absence rate. It is the court's expectation that the child will consistently and regularly attend school and not miss days due to minor sniffles.

[61] As such, I find that it was well established that the father and the child were residing in Elliot Lake at the time the final order was made on October 18, 2023 when the week-about parenting arrangement was implemented.

[62] While the child does have siblings who reside with the mother, the oldest on a part-time basis and the youngest on a full-time basis, this would have been the case at the time the child was placed in the care of the father in February 2022 and when the matter was finalized in October 2023.

[63] I also find that the father attempted to discuss the issue of schooling for the child well in advance of enrolling her, first raising the issue in September 2023, again in January 2024 and in July 2024. He took every opportunity to seek the mother's input, the mother knew the decision the father intended to make and she took no steps to address the matter through mediation or a court application prior to December 2024 knowing that the father had final decision making authority.

[64] As such, I am not prepared to change the child's ordinary residence from Elliot Lake, Ontario. The child shall continue to primarily reside with the father in Elliot Lake and attend school in Elliot Lake.

[65] That being said, given the issues which arose over the past year and a half between the parents, I am prepared to add specific clauses to the final order to address concerns regarding medical treatment, the child's attendance at school and the parents' contact information for third parties.

[66] Regarding the mother's parenting-time, both parents shall be required to keep each other as contacts for the purposes of facilitating virtual parenting-time for the mother during the week. The mother shall also be entitled to up to three weekends per month with the child to be confirmed at least 48 hours in advance that the visit will proceed. The mother shall also be entitled to the majority of time with the child during the holidays as set out below.

Decision

[67] Given my reasons above, a final order shall issue replacing the final order of October 18, 2023 in court file number 118/20-02 as follows:

1. The child A.W. born [...], 2020 shall primarily reside with the respondent father, J.W. in Elliot Lake, Ontario.

2. The applicant, A.G. and the respondent, J.W. shall share decision-making responsibility for the child A.W. born [...], 2020. The parents shall consult on all major decisions impacting the child's health, education, spirituality, extra curricular activities, general welfare and wellbeing. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the respondent father J.W. shall be permitted to make the final decision. The applicant mother, A.G. may bring the matter to court to review the decision within 30 days of being advised of the father's decision.

3. Both parents, A.G. and J.W. shall be permitted to access and obtain copies of information from third parties involved with the child including but not limited to doctors, dentists, teachers, principals, coaches and counsellors. The parties shall keep each other advised of which third parties are involved with the child and provide contact information for same. Both parties shall be listed as contacts for all third parties.

4. The respondent father, J.W. shall be responsible to make all medical, dental and counselling appointments for the child A.W. born [...], 2020. The father shall advise the mother of the date, time and location of the appointment within 24 hours of booking the appointment. Both parents shall be entitled to attend the appointment.

5. The parties shall keep each other advised of their current address, telephone number and email address. Neither parent shall block the other's contact number.

6. The applicant, A.G. shall have parenting-time with the child A.W. born [...], 2020 as follows:

   a. Virtual parenting-time each Tuesday and Thursday at 8:00 p.m. with the applicant to initiate the call;

   b. The first three weekends of each month, to be confirmed at least 48 hours in advance, from Friday after school or at 4:00 p.m. through to Sunday at 5:00 p.m. If the weekend falls on a professional development day or holiday, the applicant's parenting-time shall be extended to commence either the Thursday at 4:00 p.m. or the Monday at 5:00 p.m.

   c. Such further and other parenting-time as the parties may agree upon

7. The parties shall share holiday time with the child as set out below. The holiday schedule shall override the ordinary residency and parenting-time schedule:

   a. Commencing in 2026, the applicant mother shall have the child for two consecutive March Breaks followed by the respondent father having the child for one March Break and the parties shall rotate on a 2-week-1-week rotation thereafter. The March Break shall consist of 7 consecutive days.

   b. In odd-numbered years, the applicant mother shall have the child in her care for the first week of the Christmas Break and the respondent father shall have the child in his care for the second week of the Christmas Break. In even-numbered years, the respondent father shall have the child in his care for the first week of the Christmas Break and the applicant mother shall have the child in her care for the second week of the Christmas Break.

   c. The applicant mother shall have the child for the first two weeks of the summer holidays followed by the respondent father having the child in his care for 1 week. The parents shall follow the 2-week-1-week rotation until the Labour Day weekend at which time the child shall return to the father's care on the Saturday at 12:00 p.m., unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the parties.

   d. Such further and other holiday time and time for special events as the parties mutually agree upon.

8. During the time that the child is in the care of the mother for a period of 7 days or more, the respondent father shall be entitled to virtual parenting-time with the child each Tuesday and Thursday at 8:00 p.m. with the respondent to initiate the call.

9. The parties shall share the responsibility for transportation for parenting-time. The mother shall pick up the child at the commencement of her parenting-time from the father in Elliot Lake. The father shall pick up the child at the conclusion of the mother's parenting-time in Sault Ste. Marie.

10. The respondent father shall ensure that the child attend school regularly and consistently.

11. Both parties shall ensure that the child attend her extra curricular activities regularly and consistently.

12. The parties shall utilize a coparenting software such as Our Family Wizard, Coparently or Appclose to communicate regarding all issues pertaining to the child, including parenting-time. The parties shall mutually agree upon the software they intend to use within 10 days from the date of this order.

13. There shall be no child support payable by the applicant A.G. to the respondent J.W. given that her income source is social assistance and given the costs associated with exercising parenting-time.

14. Commencing in 2026, the applicant A.G. shall annually provide to the respondent, J.W. a copy of her income tax return and Notice of Assessment by May 30th.

15. The applicant A.G. shall notify the respondent J.W. within 15 days of obtaining employment and provide proof of same for the purpose of reviewing child support.

16. Court file number 2/25 is dismissed, and a copy of this decision shall be filed in that court file for reference. Any motion to change the above order shall be issued in court file number 44/25.

Released: December 1, 2025

Justice Heather-Ann Mendes

Ontario Court of Justice