In Ontario, courts generally begin from the position that children benefit when both parents remain actively involved in important decisions affecting their lives. These decisions often relate to education, medical care, religion, extracurricular activities, and the child’s overall well-being. As a result, joint decision-making responsibility is frequently viewed as the preferred parenting arrangement. Courts recognize that, where possible, children benefit from maintaining meaningful and healthy relationships with both parents, even after separation.
That said, joint decision-making is not automatically appropriate in every family situation. While the concept sounds cooperative in theory, it can become extremely difficult in practice where parents are unable to communicate effectively or consistently place the child’s needs ahead of their personal conflict. Joint decision-making requires ongoing cooperation, mutual respect, and the ability to engage in productive discussions about important parenting issues. Without those elements, the arrangement can quickly become stressful, ineffective, and even harmful to the child.
Ontario courts have repeatedly recognized that high levels of parental conflict may make joint decision-making undesirable. If parents are constantly arguing, refusing to communicate, undermining and demeaning one another, or repeatedly unable to agree on major issues concerning the child, courts may conclude that a joint arrangement is no longer in the child’s best interests. In those circumstances, requiring parents to continue making decisions together can create instability, expose the child to ongoing conflict, and delay important decisions relating to the child’s health, education, or daily life.
This issue was considered in J.A. v. S.M., where the Ontario Court of Justice examined whether the parties could realistically co-parent and share decision-making authority. The Court emphasized that joint decision-making involves more than simply sharing legal rights on paper. It requires a genuine ability to cooperate, communicate respectfully, and prioritize the child’s interests over ongoing disputes between the parents. Where that level of cooperation is absent, a joint arrangement may not benefit the child effectively.
Similarly, in Kale v. Santiago, the Court addressed circumstances involving significant conflict and communication difficulties between the parties. The evidence demonstrated that the parents struggled to communicate in a productive manner and were unable to consistently work together on important parenting matters. In those circumstances, the Court found that joint decision-making was impractical.
These decisions serve as a reminder that courts are primarily concerned with creating stable and functional parenting arrangements, rather than preserving a joint framework that exists only in theory but cannot operate successfully in practice.
Courts also consider whether one parent has demonstrated an unwillingness to cooperate, whether there is a history of controlling behaviour, or whether communication regularly breaks down to the point where decisions cannot be made efficiently. In some cases, even where both parents are loving and involved, the level of conflict between them may still justify granting sole decision-making responsibility to one parent in order to reduce tension and provide greater consistency for the child.
Importantly, an order for sole decision-making responsibility does not necessarily mean the other parent is excluded from the child’s life. In many cases, the non-decision-making parent continues to have significant parenting time and remains actively involved in the child’s upbringing. The key distinction is simply that one parent has the final authority to make major decisions when cooperation between the parties is no longer realistic.
Every parenting case is different, and there is no single arrangement that works for every family. Ontario courts continue to focus on the central principle of; what parenting structure will best support the child’s overall well-being, emotional health, and long-term stability. Where parents can communicate respectfully and work together, joint decision-making may remain appropriate. However, where conflict, mistrust, or communication failures make cooperation impossible, courts may determine that sole decision-making responsibility is mandatory for the child’s best interests.