“The law prior to Bill C-78 was that children should have maximum contact with both parents if it was consistent with the child’s best interests: Gordon v. Goertz 1996 CanLII 191 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27. This even applied when the children were reluctant to see a parent, which is not the case here.
Then as now, the Court is tasked with viewing what is in the best interests of the child, not the parents. The maximum contact principle was mandatory, but not absolute. The maximum contact principle only obliged the judge to respect it to the extent that such contact was consistent with the child’s best interests; if other factors showed that it would not be in the child’s best interests, the court could restrict contact: Young v. Young, 1993 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, at pp. 117-18, per McLachlin J. and Casselman v. Noonan, 2017 ONSC 3415.
Maximum contact or “maximum parenting time”, although initially included in Bill C-78, was removed because of concern that this might suggest presumption of equal parenting time. Rather, in allocating parenting time the court must 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.
Our Court of Appeal, in upholding the decision of Chozik J. in Knapp v. Knapp, affirmed the principle that a child-focused approach to achieve as much parenting time as is possible with each parent is the objective of the maximum contact principle. It may end up being equal time. It may not. Each family is different, and the principle is a guide set out to benefit children: Knapp v. Knapp, 2021 ONCA, per Benotto J.A.”