“In Vohra v. Vohra, 2009 ONCJ 135 (CanLII), [2009] O.J. No. 1446, Justice Stanley Sherr stated that a flexible approach should be adopted to determine what is a full-time program of education. The flexible approach allows the determination to be made having regard to the child’s aptitudes and abilities:
“Most courts have followed a flexible approach to the determination of what constitutes a full-time program of education. A full-time program does not necessarily mean full-time attendance at school. A child can be found to be enrolled in a full-time program of education while taking less than a full course load, so long as his or her participation is meaningful and consistent with the program’s purposes and objectives. See Wilson v. Wilson, 2002 CanLII 2824 (ON SC), 2002 CanLII 2824, 117 A.C.W.S. (3d) 945, [2002] O.J. No. 4308, [2002] O.T.C. 885, 2002 CarswellOnt 3838 (Ont. S.C.); Lall v. Lall, 2009 ONCJ 96 (CanLII), [2009] O.J. No. 1273, 2009 CarswellOnt 1629 (Ont. C.J.); and Kapounek v. Brown, 2000 CanLII 20579 (ON SC), 2000 CanLII 20579, 7 R.F.L. (5th) 144, [2000] O.J. No. 1301, 2000 CarswellOnt 1406 (Ont. Fam. Ct.) (where the child received support while attending a two year course over three years). The court must examine the individual circumstances of each case when making this determination.”
The flexible approach, where the Court examines the question of full time enrolment in the context of the child’s ability and aptitude, is now followed by most courts. In Wilson v. Wilson,2002 CanLII 2824 (ON SC), 2002 CanLII 2824, 117 A.C.W.S. (3d) 945, [2002] O.J. No. 4308, [2002] O.T.C. 885, 2002 CarswellOnt 3838 (Ont. S.C.) Justice Heeney concluded that section 31 of the Family Law Act is intended to ensure that parents support their children while they are fully engaged in their education, and should be strictly construed for the benefit of children.”