Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FS-25-058 Date: 2025-09-02 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Kristen Lafrance, Applicant And: Jacob McGill, Respondent

Before: Ellies J.

Counsel: D. Legere, for the Applicant Respondent, self-represented

Heard: August 29, 2025

Endorsement

[1] The applicant mother moves for a temporary order that the parties' four-year-old child attend a school in Sturgeon Falls, where the applicant resides. If such an order is made, the applicant also requests that the present parenting time regime be changed to accommodate the fact that the child will begin going to school.

[2] The respondent father opposes the mother's request and asks, instead that the child attend a school in Markstay, which is roughly halfway between the applicant's place of residence and that of the respondent, in Capreol. If the father's request is granted, he requests similar changes to the parenting time regime resulting from the child's attendance at school.

[3] The parties resolved divorce proceedings in 2023, in May of which Boucher J. (now Boucher R.S.J.) ordered that the child's primary residence would be with the mother and that the father would have parenting time with the child "on his days off from employment". Under the terms of the order, therefore, the parties were left to work out the details of their parenting time, which they did.

[4] The mother alleges that the father frequently made unilateral changes to the parenting time schedule that were unnecessary and undertaken only for his benefit, rather than that of the child. Therefore, she argues that a more structured parenting time schedule is in order, in any event.

[5] The father denies that the changes were for his benefit only or that they were unnecessary, especially in circumstances where his hours of employment suddenly changed. The father works as a heavy equipment operator on a crew for the railroad. He presently works eight days on and four days off. The crew works throughout Northern Ontario.

[6] I place no weight on the allegations relating either to the changes in parenting time or to another allegation in the mother's affidavit relating to the father's failure to bring the child to an important medical appointment in Ottawa. In my view, those allegations are irrelevant to the issue I must decide, namely, which school the child should attend.

[7] Counsel for the mother has referred me to the decisions in Thomas v. Osika, 2028 ONSC 2712, and Offer v. Lamorea, 2024 ONSC 927. Both cases involved a similar issue, and I found both cases to be helpful. I have considered the provisions of s. 16 of the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), regarding the child's best interests and the factors listed at para. 37 of the reasons in Thomas. In the present case, I find that the most important factor in choosing the appropriate school relates to the composition of the student body at each of the proposed schools.

[8] If the child was to attend school in Markstay, there is no evidence he would be attending school with anyone he knows from outside the school or with whom he might develop a friendship that would continue after school. During the hearing, the father submitted that the child could attend school in Capreol, instead. However, this is unsupported by the affidavit the father filed at the last minute. As a result, I have no evidence that the child would know anyone, with the possible exception of his stepsiblings.

[9] It is also important to me that, if the child was to attend school in Markstay, he would have to travel at least a half-hour each way each day, regardless of which parent he was staying with at the time. In my view, this detracts unnecessarily from the child's time with each parent and is not in his best interests.

[10] For these reasons, I have concluded that it is in the child's best interests to attend the school proposed by the mother, École Publique Jeunesse Active, in Sturgeon Falls.

[11] As I mentioned earlier, the parenting time schedule must be changed regardless of which school the child attends. Of the two changes suggested by the mother, both parties prefer the "three out of five weekends" proposal and I agree that it would be in the child's best interests because it will maximize his time with the father. I also agree with the suggestion that the order include a clause relating to homework. However, in my view, it should require that each party ensure that homework provided by the teacher is completed for any missed day of school.

[12] During the hearing, I asked the parties for their submissions on costs, depending on who was successful on the motion. On behalf of the mother, counsel advised she would seek costs of $2,000, all-inclusive, but that there was an offer to settle in play, which might mean that a higher costs award should be made. The father advised he would not seek costs and that he understood that he might have to pay the costs sought on behalf of the mother if he was not successful.

[13] The issue in this motion is one we see frequently in family law proceedings where parents separate and take up residences in different towns or cities. In this case, reasonable options were put forward by both sides to resolve a difficult situation. In those circumstances, I am not inclined to order costs in excess of the $2,000 requested on behalf of the mother, regardless of the possibility that the costs could be higher as a result of the offer to settle.

[14] This is especially true here, where the Bill of Costs submitted on behalf of the mother indicates that costs on a full indemnity basis for all services rendered in connection with the motion would amount to $2,111.28, all-inclusive.

[15] Therefore, I have fixed costs in the all-inclusive amount of $2,000, entered this figure in the draft order (which I have amended slightly to reflect my comments on the homework clause), and signed.

M.G. Ellies J.

Date: September 2, 2025