Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: MARYAM MOAZZAMI, Applicant
AND:
AMIN HEIDARI, Respondent
BEFORE: C. Leach J.
COUNSEL: Elizabeth Mourao, for the Applicant
Daljit Mann, for the Respondent
HEARD: January 5, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
ENDORSEMENT
1This is a motion brought by the Applicant mother for temporary child support, temporary spousal support, and orders related to the children’s enrolment in a private school for the 2026/2027 school year. The Respondent father has brought a cross motion for equal parenting time with the children. It is not reasonably possible for all of these issues to be addressed in the hour that is allotted to short motions, especially given that the parties disagree as to how the father’s annual income for support purposes should be calculated. The father is currently paying child support but based on an income lower than his 2024 earnings.
2There is urgency to the issue of the children’s school, as the deadline to enroll them for the 2026/2027 school year is February 9, 2026. The parties have a settlement conference scheduled for February 13, 2026, at which time they may schedule separate motions to address the support issues and the parenting time issues. Accordingly, only the school issue will be addressed in this order. The balance of the relief sought by both parties will be dismissed without prejudice to their ability to revive these motions after the settlement conference, if required.
Background
3The parties separated on February 2, 2025 after a marriage of just under 12 years. They have two sons, ages 6 and 3. The children reside primarily with their mother. Currently, they have overnight parenting time with their father every Saturday to Sunday and every Wednesday. The father has recently moved to a larger condominium and the parties have agreed that, as of February 15, 2026, the children will spend alternate weekends (Friday to Monday) and Wednesday overnights with him. There is no order in place with respect to decision-making responsibility.
4The six-year-old child has attended the private school since September 2023, when he was enrolled in junior kindergarten. The three-year-old has attended the school’s daycare program for the past two years, since 2024. Both boys attend the before and aftercare programs offered at the private school in order to accommodate their parents’ work schedules. The cost of before and after care is included in the tuition fees. The mother’s parents have paid for the older child’s tuition since he started to attend the school. The parties have paid for younger child’s day care fees.
Issues to be determined
5The mother wishes to enroll the children at the same private school for the upcoming school year. The older child will be entering Grade 2 and younger child will be entering junior kindergarten. She states that her parents are committed to continuing to pay the older child’s tuition, but that she and the father would be required to pay for younger child’s tuition and fees of $33,025. She seeks an order requiring him to contribute his proportionate share of the after-tax tuition costs.
6The father is opposed and has refused to sign the re-enrollment documents. He proposes that the children instead be enrolled at the public school in their catchment area and attend before and after care at the childcare centre located on site.
7The enrolment deadline is February 9, 2026.
8The issues that I must decide are:
a. is it in the children’s best interests to change schools?
b. If no, is the private school tuition an appropriate section 7 expense in this case?
c. If yes, what should the Respondent’s contribution be?
Issue One: Is it in the children’s best interests to change schools?
9Compelling and cogent evidence must show that a change in schools is in a child’s best interests: J.E.S. v. S.S, 2020 ONSC 6064.
10When a child is already enrolled in a program of education, the starting point for the determination is: 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 who 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: D.B. V. M.R.B., 2019 ONSC 425.
11The onus is on the parent who suggests changing schools to demonstrate that the change will be in the best interests of the child. While each instance is very fact specific, factors which may be taken into account by the court in determining the bests interests of the child include assessing any impact on the stability of the child. This may include examining how many years the child has attended his or her current school; 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. 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. Any problems with the present school will be considered: Askalan v. Taleb, 2012 ONSC 4746 at paras 32-33
12In this case, the father has not produced compelling and cogent evidence to show that a change in schools is in the children’s best interests. The father’s primary argument is that the private school placement may not be sustainable over the long term and accordingly that there is a high risk of future disruption to their education. His view is that the parties could not possibly afford to cover the cost of a private school education for both children until they graduate from high school, and that the maternal grandparents have provided no guarantee that they will continue to cover the older child’s tuition into the future. He points to the wife’s evidence that her parents are not wealthy and are close to retirement, and queries how much longer they will be able to make this financial commitment. From his perspective, moving the children now to the public school system provides them with more long-term security.
13At this point, however, the court’s concern is what school placement is best for the children pending a final decision about decision-making responsibility and parenting time. It may very well be that it is not financially viable for the children to attend private school until they graduate from high school. However, the maternal grandparents are prepared to cover the older child’s tuition for 2026/27, and the father is not arguing that he and the mother have insufficient funds to pay for the younger child’s tuition for the next school year. This has undoubtedly been a tumultuous year for the boys, as they adjust to their parents’ separation, new homes, and an evolving parenting time schedule. I find that it is in their best interest to maintain continuity in their school placement and the familiar environment and routine it offers.
14The father also argues that private school is not a necessary expense to meet the children’s needs. The wife’s evidence was that the younger child has a history of developmental delays, receives speech therapy and has received physiotherapy. Her view is that he benefits from the additional resources and small class sizes in private school. The husband does not agree that the younger child has any special needs that could not be met in the public school system. He points to a series of cases (Machado v. Viera, 2025 ONCJ 49; Roberts v. Symons, 2023 ONSC 4757, Gill v. Gill, 2023 ONSC 5882) in which the court has found that, absent evidence that private school is necessary, or that a child has any particular needs which could only be met at private school, or any other such ‘compelling reason’ – public school is the default. However, in each of these cases, the child was not yet attending the private school in question and thus the onus was on the party advocating for private school to establish a nexus between the children’s needs and how the private school was exceptionally placed to meet those needs. (See Machado v. Viera, at paras. 110-11). In contrast, both children have been attending this private school for some time now, and the onus is on the Respondent to satisfy the court that it is in their interests to change schools. He has not met this onus.
15Finally, the mother’s evidence is that she recently attended at the day care proposed by the father and learned that they could not offer a before/after-care spot for the younger child for the 2026/2027 school year. The father urged the court not to rely on this evidence, as the mother had not provided direct evidence from the day care about this issue. However, the father did not provide any evidence at all about whether this daycare had space for the children. As the party seeking to change the school placement, it is the father’s obligation to satisfy the court that there is a suitable alternative plan for the children. As the parties both work fulltime, that plan must include before and after care. The father has not done so. Accordingly, I grant the mother’s request for an order dispensing with the Respondent’s signature on the enrolment documents.
Issue Two: is the private school tuition an appropriate section 7 expense in this case?
16Section 7(1)(d) of the Child Support Guidelines confers discretion on the court to provide for the payment of all or part of extraordinary expenses for primary or secondary school education. Expenses are extraordinary if they exceed the amount that the requesting parent can reasonably cover, taking into account the income of the requesting spouse and any child support received: Delichte v. Rogers, 2013 MBCA 106. Based on the Applicant’s most recent financial statement sworn January 27, 2026, I am satisfied that the Applicant could not reasonably cover the younger child’s private school tuition and that the expense is extraordinary.
17The expenses must also satisfy the two-part test of reasonableness and necessity under subsection 7(1) of the Guidelines. The following factors must be taken into account: (i) the necessity of the expense in relation to the child’s best interests; (ii) the reasonableness of the expense in relation to the means of the spouses and those of the child; and (iii)the family’s spending pattern prior to the separation: Delichte v. Rogers, 2013 MBCA 106.
18For the reasons set out under Issue One, I find that the expense is necessary in relation to the children’s best interests, which is to remain in their current school placement for the 2026-2027 school year. I also find that the expense is reasonable in relation to the means of the spouses. The father estimates his 2025 income to be $304,220. The wife estimates that her 2025 gross earnings will be approximately $60,000. The younger child’s tuition will amount to only 9% of the combined income of the parties, which I find to be reasonable considering that it will also cover their daycare costs. In addition to their incomes, the parties’ financial statements disclose other financial resources, including the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home which amounted to roughly $1.3million. Finally, I find that the expense is reasonable in light of the family’s spending pattern prior to separation. Although the father’s evidence is that he did not agree with the wife’s decision to enroll the children in private school, the fact is that the family did incur this expense prior to separation.
Issue Three: what should the Respondent’s contribution be?
19Under s. 7(2) of the Child Support Guidelines, the guiding principle is that the expense is shared by the parents in proportion to their respective incomes after deducting from the expense the contribution, if any, from the child.
20In this matter, the calculation of the father’s income for support purposes remains a live issue, as does the issue of temporary spousal support. For the purposes of this motion, I elect to use the parties’ incomes for 2024. The father’s 2024 income was $323,642 and the mother’s was $106,000. Accordingly, the father shall pay 75% of the expense and the mother shall pay 25%. These percentages will be subject to reapportionment by the judge who determines the issues of the father’s income for support purposes and the payment of spousal support.
Orders
21For the reasons above, this court orders that:
a. The Respondent’s signature on all documentation needed to enroll the children in their private school for the 2026/2027 school year is dispensed with.
b. The Respondent shall pay 75 per cent of the after-tax cost of the school tuition fees for the younger child. This percentage is subject to reapportionment by the judge who determines the issues of the father’s income for support purposes and the payment of spousal support.
c. The Applicant’s motion is otherwise dismissed, without prejudice to her ability to bring a further motion in respect of the relief sought in paragraphs 2 and 3 of her Notice of Motion dated January 27, 2026.
d. The Respondent’s motion is dismissed, without prejudice to his ability to bring a further motion in respect of the relief sought in his Notice of Motion dated January 30, 2026.
Costs
22As the Applicant was successful on this motion, she is presumptively entitled to her costs on a partial indemnity basis. The parties are encouraged to reach an agreement on costs. If they are unable to do so, the Applicant shall serve and file written submissions on or before February 27, 2026. The Respondent shall serve and file responding submissions on or before March 6, 2026. Written submissions shall comply with the requirements set out in r. 24(1() of the Family Law Rules.
Justice Carolyn Leach
Date: February 6, 2026