A child’s parents are equally entitled to decision-making responsibility: s. 20(1) of the CLRA.
The court must ensure that any decision-making regime supports the best interests of the child. “Section 24 of the CLRA endorses a child-centered approach in determining parenting orders”: Mougoui v. Sekkat, 2025 ONSC 303 at para. 21 citing Young v Young, 1993 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, at pp. 62-63, per L’Heureux-Dubé J.; Knapp v Knapp, 2021 ONCA 305, at para. 34.
Children with special needs require decision-making plans that take in account “the extent of the parties’ involvement in addressing those needs and their willingness to consider reasonable recommendations from knowledgeable and experienced professionals”: Duclos v. Davis, 2018 ONSC 6088 (S.C.J.), at para. 36(d); Keown v. Procee, 2014 ONSC 7314 (S.C.J.), at paras. 20-25; S.A.P. v. D.M.P, 2020 ABQB 811 (Q.B.), at paras. 20-22.
Though neither party has asked for it, the following principles would determine whether to make an order for joint parenting:
a. There must be evidence of historical communication between the parents and appropriate communication between them;
b. Joint decision-making cannot be ordered in the hope that it will improve their communication;
c. The fitness of both parents does not mandate joint parenting;
d. The fact that one parent professes an inability to communicate does not precluee an order for joint decision-making responsibility;
e. No matter how detailed the custody order there will always be gaps and unexpected situations, and when they arise, they must be able to be addressed on an ongoing basis; and
f. The younger the child, the more important parental communication is.
Kaplanis v Kaplanis, 2005 CanLII 1625 (ON CA).”