CITATION: Levin v. Dick, 2026 ONSC 4682
COURT FILE NO.: FS-21-25881-000
DATE: 20260817
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: RIVKA LEAH LEVIN, Applicant
AND:
SHELDON MEIR DICK, Respondent
BEFORE: Mr. Justice M. D. Faieta
COUNSEL: Self-represented Applicant
Self-represented Respondent
HEARD: August 4 and 13, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The parties are the parents of a nine-year old daughter (“the Child”) and have been separated for almost six years. The Applicant mother brings this motion for the following orders:
An order that the Child attend Makom Afterschool in place of Aleph Champ Hebrew School for the 2026–2027 school year.
An order authorizing the Applicant to complete and execute any documents reasonably necessary to enroll the Child in Makom Afterschool.
An order that the costs of the Child's attendance at Makom Afterschool be shared by the parties in accordance with their current proportionate sharing of s. 7 expenses.
An order that the Respondent pay the Applicant's costs of this motion.
[2] On the initial return of this motion, the Respondent father had not filed any materials. A brief adjournment was granted for the Respondent to file materials and for the Applicant to file a reply affidavit. Both parties have done so.
[3] The Respondent father asks that the motion be dismissed and that an order be issued requiring the Child to continue to attend the Aleph Champ Hebrew School program at West Preparatory Public School on Thursdays for the 2026-2027 school year at his cost, or alternatively, that the Child attend Chabad of Midtown on Mondays at his cost.
[4] Both the Aleph Champ Hebrew School and the Chabad of Midtown are Chabad programs that provide a traditional Orthodox Jewish perspective on Jewish and Hebrew language education as opposed to the Makom Afterschool which offers for children a pluralistic Jewish and Hebrew learning program that embraces traditional and liberal approaches to Judaism.
Background
[5] The parties were married on June 28, 2015, and separated on September 1, 2020. The Applicant mother commenced this application in September 2021.
[6] On May 24, 2023, following a mediation, the parties signed a Parenting Plan. The Plan addresses parenting time and decision-making responsibility. The Plan is a domestic agreement under the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3. Its terms are final. The Plan did not address or resolve the issue of the Child’s education and school enrolment for the 2023-2024 school year and Jewish day camp commencing in the summer of 2024.
[7] Currently, the Child primarily resides with the Applicant mother. Section 6.0 of the Amended Parenting Plan provides for a two-week cycle:
Week One – Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday & Sunday with the Applicant mother. Thursday after school to Friday morning at before-care with the Respondent father.
Week Two – Monday after the Child’s chess class (or other scheduled extracurricular activity) until 7:15 pm (return time to Applicant mother) with the Respondent father. If Monday is a statutory/school holiday, the Respondent father’s parenting time shall be from 4:00 – 7:00 pm; Tuesday, Wednesday nights with Applicant mother; Thursday after school until Sunday at 4:00 pm (return to Applicant mother) with the Respondent father.
[8] Paragraph 8.2 of the Plan states:
The parents agree that major decisions relating to the Child’s health and education shall be made jointly and in line with the following consultation process:
a. A parent that identifies a major decision that must be made raises the issue in writing.
b. The other parent shall have 7 days after receiving written notice to provide her/his input regarding the decision.
c. The parents will confer and discuss their respective positions for 5 days in an attempt to find consensus.
d. With respect to major decisions relating to education and health, the matter will be referred to a Parenting Coordinator (PC) if an agreement can’t be reached.
e. If a decision is contemplated that is very time sensitive, the timelines noted above shall be adjusted as follows:
i. The parent receiving notice shall provide a response within 3 days; and
ii. The period of collaborative discussions shall be limited to 2 days.
f. The timeline provided should exclude Shabbat and major Jewish holidays (“Yom Tov”) to respect the observances of the holiday.
[9] Paragraph 8.3 of the Plan states:
Meir and Rivka agree that with respect to decisions relating to religion/cultural upbringing, both parties will provide guidance to [the Child] as they see fit and are responsible for making decisions within their own households. Neither party will disparage the beliefs or choices of the other parent, and both parents will be respectful of this parallel decision-making regime.
[10] The Applicant mother states that “the parties do not currently have a Parenting Coordinator available to resolve this dispute”.
[11] The Child has attended Hawthorne Public School since the Fall of 2022. Since 2023, after school on Thursdays, she has attended the afterschool program offered on Thursdays by Aleph Champ Hebrew School at the West Preparatory Public School.
[12] In 2023, the parties could not agree on a school for the Child, nor could they agree on religious education for the Child. The Respondent consented on a temporary and without prejudice basis to the Child continuing to attend Hawthorne for the 2023-2024 school year so long as the choice of school for 2024-2025 was dealt with by the Parenting Coordinator.
Motion – September 14, 2023
[13] By Endorsement dated September 14, 2023, Kristjanson J. ordered:
On a temporary and without prejudice basis, the Child is to attend Hawthorne for the 2023-2024 school year.
On a temporary and without prejudice basis, the Child is to attend the Thursday Hebrew School program at West Preparatory School for the 2023-2024 school year on the same terms regarding pick-up and drop-off as last year.
The issue of the Child’s future schooling (both regular and Hebrew school) shall be the subject of dispute resolution with a parenting coordinator pursuant to the Parenting Plan with all schooling issues to be decided no later than May 2024.
The parties are to decide on either Dan Goldberg or Jared Norton to serve as Parenting Coordinator by October 6, and to jointly retain the Parenting Coordinator within 10 days after agreement.
If the parties are unable to agree, Kristjanson J. will choose one of the two names out of a hat at the request of one of the parties, such request to be made through the Family Portal on notice to the other side.
[14] There is no evidence that the parties returned to Kristjanson J. as she directed.
[15] Kristjanson J. found that it was in the Child’s best interests to continue in the Hebrew school program on Thursdays for the following reasons:
[The Child] attended this program last year. It is a school (West Prep) where she had previously attended daycare. She knows some of the children and teachers. Therefore, there is an element of stability and familiarity which is important when her parents are so conflictual.
Perhaps most importantly, the Wednesday program is too far away from Hawthorne. She would be guaranteed to come in uncomfortably late – always a difficult and awkward position for a child. At least with the Thursday program, she will hopefully arrive only five minutes, not twenty minutes late. It is in [the Child]’s best interests to be at a program where she will not consistently be very late. The closest program is the Thursday program.
In the father’s view, the Hebrew School is consistent with her cultural and linguistic heritage. He says she will learn “Hebrew, Jewish History, Jewish Customs and Traditions and an appreciation for her culture”. The mother takes issue with the values of the school. But the Wednesday and Thursday programs are the same, and the mother is not objecting to the Wednesday program.
Both parents agree that [the Child] has enjoyed Hebrew School, and this will be a continuation of a school that she likes.
Since this is an education program, this is not extracurricular programming on the mother’s time, nor a household religious practice issue. School is not an intrusion on parenting time: school is school, whether Hebrew school or public school. [Emphasis added]
Parenting Coordinator
[16] Dan Goldberg acted as the parties’ Parenting Coordinator from 2023 until the Fall of 2025 at which time the Respondent father ended Mr. Goldberg’s retainer.
[17] The parties met with Mr. Goldberg in January 2025, regarding whether the Child should continue with the Aleph Champ Hebrew School at West Preparatory Public School or whether she should attend the Chabad of Midtown Hebrew School which runs on Mondays from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm. On January 30, 2025, Mr. Goldberg sent the parties an email that did not decide the issue but instead outlined several points for their consideration. The Applicant mother states that “… while I remained dissatisfied with aspects of the program, [the Child] appeared happy there, and I continued to facilitate her attendance”.
Gifted Program
[18] The Child was identified as gifted in January 2026 and will be attending the Grade 4 gifted program at McMurrich Junior Public School beginning in September 2026.
Motion – May 12, 2026
[19] In May 2026, the Applicant mother brought a motion for an order requiring the Respondent father to pay child support arrears, s. 7 expenses arrears, as well as ongoing child support and section 7 expenses. Kraft J. ordered that the Respondent father pay child support arrears of $1,949, and that he pays table child support of $932 per month starting June 1, 2026. As well, the Respondent father was ordered to pay the applicant 75 percent of the Child’s s. 7 expenses.
[20] The Respondent father brought his own motion to address the enrolment of the Child in Hebrew school and summer camp. He submitted that he wants the child to attend Hebrew school next year as she had in 2025-2026 on Thursdays from 3:15 pm to 5:15 pm at West Preparatory Public School. The Applicant mother stated that “… she consents to the child attending Hebrew school during [the Respondent’s] parenting time.” Kraft J. advised the Respondent that if he wants the Child to attend a Hebrew Day School for the 2026-2027 school year, then he would need to bring a separate motion with more evidence.
[21] In addition, Kraft J. ordered on consent that:
(a) The parties shall ensure that the Child is enrolled in the gifted program for Grade 4 at McMurrich for the 2026-2027 school year;
(b) The parties shall ensure that the Child is enrolled at the Centre Day Camp for two weeks for this summer; and
(c) Within 15 days, the Respondent father shall provide the Applicant mother with three names of proposed parenting coordinators, at a reasonable cost. The applicant shall choose one of the three PCs proposed, after which the parties shall promptly retain the PC, pay for the PC’s costs on the basis of the Applicant paying 25 percent and the Respondent paying 75 percent and ensure that the PC has arbitral powers.
[22] There is no evidence that either party has complied with Kraft J. Order regarding the appointment of a parenting coordinator.
[23] On May 20, 2026, the Applicant mother told the Respondent father:
As I have already confirmed, I agree that [the Child] may continue attending Aleph Champ Hebrew School at West Prep on Thursdays during your parenting time for the 2026-2027 school year.
If you are proposing a different Hebrew school because of pickup from McMurrich, then I suggest we consider options. I would be open to Makom Hebrew School. It has a stronger focus on Hebrew language learning which I think would be beneficial for [the Child]. She has told me multiple times how frustrated she is that after four years at West Prep she is still learning the Hebrew alphabet. She made much faster progress when you worked on Hebrew reading with her at home, which suggests that [the Child] is capable of learning much more with the right instruction and practice.
Makom also offer pickup from McMurrich … and runs on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so she would receive more frequent Hebrew instruction.
[24] On June 11, 2026, the Applicant mother told the Respondent father that he should consider moving the Child to Makom Afterschool given the child’s dissatisfaction with the program:
… With respect to Hebrew school, [the Child] has told me that she had a difficult experience this past year. She enjoyed Hebrew school for the first three years, but this past year has been different. While this was her fourth year at Aleph Champ, she is still on the first Hebrew level which has been both boring and frustrating for her. She has also said that she finds the program repetitive. I know she brought this up with you previously in therapy, and I encouraged her to speak with you directly about how she is feeling again.
If continuing Hebrew school is important to you, I think we should consider whether a different program might be a better fit for her. Makom would allow [the Child] to try a different Hebrew school, provide after-school coverage two days per week, and includes pick up from McMurrich. You stated in court last month that you wanted [the Child] to switch to a Hebrew school with pickup from McMurrich as it has [become] difficult with our work to transport [the Child] to West Prep.
[25] On July 12, 2026, the Applicant mother told the Respondent father that the Child should attend Makom Afterschool on Tuesdays and Thursdays for the 2026-2027 school year rather than the Aleph Champ Hebrew School:
… [the Child] has been very clear that she does not want to return to the Aleph Champ at West Prep. She found this past year to be a negative experience overall. She said the programming became repetitive, and after four years in the program, she is still only being taught the first half of the Hebrew alphabet, despite demonstrating that she is capable of progressing much more rapidly when provided with instruction that matches her abilities. She has expressed concerns to both of us, including in therapy, and her opposition to returning is now very strong. While she is currently reluctant to attend any Hebrew school because of this experience, she is more open to trying a different program.
My goal is not to discontinue Hebrew education. Hebrew and Jewish education are important to me and I want [the Child] to continue in a program where she is engaged, appropriately challenged and able to make meaningful progress in Hebrew language.
I have received updated information about Makom … that makes it a particularly strong option:
The program will run at Winona, which is attached to McMurrich, allowing for an easy transition and pickup directly from her school on Tuesdays and Thursdays until 5:45 pm.
Makom has approved a substantial financial subsidy reducing the annual tuition … to just $500. … There is no other aftercare option that I am aware of that is nearly as reasonably priced.
The program places a much stronger emphasis on actual Hebrew language learning and progress which aligns with [the Child]’s demonstrated ability when she received more effective instruction (as you saw when working with her at home). …
Given [the Child]’s clearly expressed views and preferences, her educational needs, the need for reliable aftercare coverage, the significant subsidy, the improved transportation logistics given the location, and Makom’s stronger focus on Hebrew language learning, I believe Makom is the option that best supports her overall best interest while allow her to continue her Jewish education. …
[26] On July 12, 2026, the Respondent father replied:
I will review your email in full, but since we have already discussed this, I have shared my opinion on Makom, and it is not a suitable Hebrew option for the reasons already discussed. I also disagree with your classification of [the Child]’s experience, as I have spoken to her many times, and specifically worked through the issues she raised regarding the placement in the lower level that was too slow for her.
Should the Child attend the Makom Afterschool rather than the Aleph Champ Hebrew School for the 2026–2027 school year?
[27] The relevant legal principles were described by Kristjanson J. in her Endorsement dated September 14, 2023, at para. 10, as follows:
A child's school selection must be determined purely based on which proposal is better for the child. Each case must be decided on the unique circumstances and needs of each child, considering the relevant factors. The decision on choice of school is a matter of judicial discretion. In Thomas v. Osika, 2018 ONSC 2712 at para. 37. Audet J. set out several factors relevant to the exercise of a judge’s discretion on a school choice motion. I set out the relevant factors below:
(a) 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 );
(b) The emphasis must be placed on the interests of the child, and not on the interests or rights of the parents (Gordon v. Goertz, 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1996] S.C.J. No. 52 ;
(c) 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 ;
(d) 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 childcare providers or other unsettling features (Askalan v. Taleb, 2012 ONSC 4746) ;
(e) 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) ;
(f) Any problems with the proposed schools will be considered (Askalan);
(g) 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);
(h) 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);
(i) 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).
[28] The Child is an intellectually gifted child who is not challenged by the language program offered by the Aleph Champ Hebrew School and has made little progress in learning the Hebrew alphabet over four years. There is no dispute that she voiced her displeasure with the program with her therapist in the presence of her mother alone as she did not feel comfortable raising those concerns directly with her father. As a result, it is not surprising that the Respondent father states “[f]rom my own observation, she goes willingly [to Aleph Champ] and she enjoys it”. While she may have enjoyed the program in the past, I am satisfied that her views changed earlier this year.
[29] There does not appear to be any dispute that Makom likely offers a more rigorous Hebrew language program than Aleph Champ. This is based on the Applicant’s own views which are in part based on discussions she has had with parents whose children attend Makom.
[30] It appears that the Child’s experience regarding Aleph Champ has impacted her desire to attend any Hebrew school. The Applicant mother states:
By approximately June 10, 2026, [the Child’s] opposition had become substantially stronger. She told me that if Meir required her to return to Aleph Champ, she would refuse to get out of the car. On July 20, 2026, before proceeding with this motion, I asked [the Child] whether her feelings about returning to Aleph Champ had changed because I did not want to pursue the motion if she no longer opposed returning. She said that her feelings had not changed and reiterated that she found the program repetitive, saying she had been doing the same thing over and over. She stated that she would not get into the car with Meir in the first place if he were taking her to Hebrew school. I believe this accurately reflects how she currently feels about attending.
During the June 10, 2026, conversation, I asked whether she would consider a different Hebrew school program. [The Child] said that she would rather not attend any Hebrew school. However, she also said that, although she was reluctant, she would be willing to try a different program provided she would not be required to continue if it also proves to be a poor fit. [Emphasis added]
[31] The Respondent father submits that the Applicant mother’s consent on May 20, 2026 that the Child “may continue attending Aleph Champ Hebrew School at West Prep on Thursdays during your parenting time for the 2026-2027 school year” should be given “full weight”. It makes little sense to do so given that the Child’s views and preferences have changed in that her opposition to returning to Aleph Champ became much stronger after that the Applicant’s statement was made.
[32] The change in afterschool will likely have little, if any, impact on the stability of the Child. The Child attended this afterschool program once each week for two hours over four school years. In light of her views regarding the program, there is little risk that leaving this program will be unsettling for the Child.
[33] Given that the Makom Afterschool is located in the Winona Public School, which is physically attached to her new elementary school, switching to Makom Afterschool will mean that the Child’s travel time to her afterschool program will also be eliminated. Chabad of Midtown would have a similar commute time as exists for Aleph Champ Hebrew School, although it does have a school bus that transports children from McMurrich.
[34] The Respondent father submits that “… the Applicant mother is asking the Court to end the Child’s long-standing Orthodox education and replace with Makom during my parenting time. This is not adding a program. It is removing the one that the Child has known for years.” As Kristjanson J. noted, “school is not an intrusion on parenting time.” It is also not a justification for ordering a child to attend a program that is otherwise not in her best interests to attend.
[35] The programs offered by Aleph Champ Hebrew School and Makom Afterschool cover both the Hebrew language as well as Jewish history and culture albeit with different emphases. The reduction in emphasis on the Orthodox Jewish perspective in moving from a Chabad school to the Makom afterschool program, which perspective is important to the Respondent father, can be addressed by the Respondent father engaging the Child in other religious activities.
[36] For the above reasons, I find that there is convincing evidence that the Child’s best interests are served by her attending the Makom Afterschool program for the 2026-2027 school year.
Costs
[37] The Applicant mother seeks costs of about $4,000 based on 30 hours at a rate of $125 per hour plus disbursements of $140. Had he been successful, the Respondent father sought about $2,000 USD based on 20 hours at $100 USD per hour, plus the cost of legal counsel (about $5,000-$7,000) to review and file the materials that he drafted.
[38] The principles related to the award of costs in a family law proceeding were described by Monahan J., as he then was, in Sonia v. Ratan, 2023 ONSC 982, aff’d 2024 ONCA 152, at paras. 25-33. In addition, the principles for the award of costs to a self-represented litigant are outlined in Cusnir v. Taylor, 2026 ONCA 470, at para. 10.
[39] The Applicant mother was successful on this motion and is entitled to her reasonable and proportional costs. I find that that it is just to order that the Respondent pay costs of $2,800, inclusive of HST and disbursements, to the Applicant within 30 days.
Order
[40] Order to go on a temporary basis as follows:
(1) The Child shall attend the Makom Afterschool, rather than the Aleph Champ Hebrew School, on Tuesdays and Thursdays for the 2026-2027 school year.
(2) The Applicant mother is authorized to complete and execute any documents reasonably necessary to enroll the Child at the Makom Afterschool for the 2026-2027 school year. The Applicant mother shall promptly provide a copy of those documents to the Respondent father.
(3) The costs of the Child’s attendance at the Makom Afterschool for the 2026-2027 school year, shall, after the application of subsidies, if any, be shared by the parties in accordance with their current proportionate sharing of s. 7 expenses as specified by paragraph 40(e) of Kraft J.’s Endorsement dated May 12, 2026.
(4) The Respondent shall pay costs of $2,800 to the Applicant within 30 days.
(5) If the parties have not already complied with paragraph 40(c) of Kraft J.’s Endorsement dated May 12, 2026, then, as contemplated by paragraph 8.2(d) of the Parenting Plan, the parties shall jointly retain a Parenting Coordinator within 30 days to consider major decisions relating to education and health. If the parties fail to do so, then no further motions with respect to major decisions regarding education and health shall be brought by either party unless, at least three weeks in advance of any such motion, leave is granted by this Court.
(6) This Order is effective immediately without a formal Order being issued and entered.
Mr. Justice M. D. Faieta
Date: August 17, 2026