“That said, I will address the other arguments raised by the father. On this motion, the father claims that the mother’s decision to enrol the daughter in a Hebrew school is a material change in circumstances. This position essentially argues that the mother’s exercise of the decision-making authority granted to her by the court amounts to a material change in circumstances. That cannot be.
Parents in Ontario have an abundance of educational options for their children. There are four public school boards in each geographic region of the province (English Public, English Catholic, French Public and French Catholic). Many of those boards offer specialized programs such as French immersion and arts-based schools. Many school boards have an optional attendance policy that permits students to attend schools outside of the school designated to serve their area of residence. Parents can also choose among a plethora of private schools, which may focus on religion, culture, language, athletics, or specific educational programs, philosophies or approaches.
The debate over the relative merits of secular versus religious school, or public versus private school, predates Confederation in this province, and continues to this day: see for example: Reference Re Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act (Ont.), 1987 CanLII 65 (SCC), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148 and Adler v. Ontario, [1996] 3 SCR 609, 1996 CanLII 148 (SCC).These are issues on which experts and reasonable people disagree.
A parent’s choice of school may be influenced by a myriad of legitimate factors, including location, the parent’s general or pedagogical philosophy or approach to education, financial resources, availability of extra-curricular activities, and perceived or real academic standing or program distinctions among schools. As a child ages, the views and interests of the child may become a relevant consideration. If there is more than one child, an effort is often made to send siblings to the same school. No one factor is overriding or paramount.
Faced with these multiple options and a complex range of variables, there is no “right” or “wrong” school choice. All of the choices listed above fall within a range of reasonable alternatives. All of the choices listed above meet the compulsory attendance requirements of s. 21 of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2. Any one of these choices could be defended as being in the best interests of the child. Parents in Ontario have the legal right to make that choice for their minor children, and, where one parent is given decision-making authority by the court, that parent has the legal right to make that choice.
Judicial micro-management of parental choices that fall within a range of reasonable alternatives will only serve to exacerbate parental conflict and invite the very kind of unnecessary litigation the trial judge was seeking to avoid when he granted decision-making authority to the mother.
Given the complex range of variables that go into parental school choice, a court is in no better position than a parent to make the “right” or “best” decision for any child. As such, a court should not interfere with the choice of a parent with decision-making authority over education unless the impugned decision will significantly disrupt the other parent’s access, or there is expert evidence that the impugned decision does not fall within the range of reasonable alternatives. No such evidence was presented on this motion.”