“The term “custody” refers broadly to parental decision-making and authority respecting a child (Young v. Young, 1993 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1993] S.C.J. No. 112 (S.C.C.)). The incidents associated with custody include the responsibilities of providing physical care for the child, overseeing all aspects of day-to-day life and long-term well-being, determining the child’s residence, disciplining the child, and making major decisions about the child’s education, religion, health care, general well-being and activities (Young, at para. 26; Kruger v. Kruger (1979), 1979 CanLII 1663 (ON CA), 25 O.R. (2d) 673 (C.A.); Baker v. Baker (1979), 1979 CanLII 1962 (ON CA), 8 R.F.L. (2d) 236 (Ont. C.A.); Chou v. Chou, 2005 CanLII 11195 (ON SC), [2005] O.J. No. 1374 (S.C.J.); Harsant v. Portnoi, 1990 CanLII 6703 (ON SC), [1990] O.J. No. 1144, 74 O.R. (2d) 33 (H.C.J.)); Scott v. Chenier, 2015 ONSC 7866 (S.C.J.) (CanLII); Izyuk v. Langley, 2015 ONSC 2409 (S.C.J.) (CanLII); Chomos v. Hamilton, 2015 ONSC 5208 (S.C.J.) (CanLII)). The power which a custody order confers on a party is not a “right” that is granted to the party for their own benefit. Rather, as the Supreme Court of Canada stated in Young, at para. 25, the power that flows from a custody order “is designed to enable that parent to discharge his or her responsibilities and obligations to the child. It is, in fact, the child’s right to a parent who will look after his or her best interests.” (see also Racine v. Woods, 1983 CanLII 27 (SCC), [1983] 2 S.C.R. 173, at 185 (S.C.C.); Frame v. Smith, 1987 CanLII 74 (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99, at p. 132 (S.C.C.)).
The term “access” refers to the rights of a party in circumstances where the other party is granted sole custody. Access rights include not only visitation privileges, but also the right to make inquiries, and to be given information, as to the health, education and welfare of the child, unless the court orders otherwise.”