Will the Court Award Sole or Joint Decision-Making Responsibility for My Child?

A judge can grant sole decision-making to one parent, joint decision-making to both, or split decision-making between parents by topic. Which way a court goes depends almost entirely on the facts of your family.

In this post, we'll walk through a recent Ontario decision that shows exactly how a court can divide decision-making between two parents who both love their kids but can't seem to make decisions together.

Vieira v Bettencourt, 2022 ONSC 6584

An 11-day trial heard by Justice Hassan of the Superior Court of Justice focused on parents, referred to in the judgment as CV and LB, who had two children, a 10-year-old daughter and an 8-year-old son. They had cohabited for only about three years before separating in 2014, when the younger child was just two months old. Both described the relationship as "toxic and conflictual" and blamed the other for the volatility.

After separation, they did the work many separated parents do. They went to mediation. They signed a Separation Agreement in 2016. They agreed on joint custody, joint decision-making, and a 10-week shared parenting schedule. 

Over the next six years, the parents struggled with nearly every decision involving the children, including schools, medical care, tutoring, extra-curricular activities, even who would attend a birthday photo on a t-ball team. By the time of trial, both parents had abandoned the joint decision-making model entirely. Each asked the court for sole decision-making responsibility.

The mother was a registered nurse earning around $100,000. The father worked in plumbing and earned around $85,000. Both were described by professionals as loving, involved, capable parents. Both had close, healthy relationships with the children. 

The Court's Decision

Divided Decision Making

Justice Hassan refused to grant sole decision-making to either parent. Instead, she ordered what she called a "divided decision-making" regime, which meant giving each parent final say in specific areas, based on where each had shown the most child-focused judgment. The father received final decision-making over education, dental care, and extra-curricular activities. The mother received final decision-making over medical care and school learning supports. Religion remained joint, since neither parent had clashed over it.

Final Did Not Mean Unilateral

Each parent was still required to provide timely and meaningful consultation with the other before exercising final authority. The court was not handing either parent a veto — it was making sure that, after real input from both, somebody could actually move a decision forward.

The Court’s Reasoning

Justice Hassan explained the reasoning this way: she found that if either parent were granted sole decision-making, "they would be unable to properly support the other's relationship with the children, or meaningfully include the other parent in the decision-making process." That outcome, she held, would not be in the children's best interests, because the children were "entitled to and will benefit from the full participation and different but valuable perspectives that both of their parents bring to their lives."

What Does "Decision-Making Responsibility" Mean?

Since March 2021, Ontario's Children's Law Reform Act (the "CLRA") uses the term "decision-making responsibility" instead of the older word "custody." If you still hear "custody" used in conversation, that's what people usually mean.

Under section 18(1) of the CLRA, decision-making responsibility covers significant decisions about a child's well-being in four areas:

• Health

• Education

• Culture, language, religion and spirituality

• Significant extra-curricular activities

Section 28 of the Act gives the court flexibility. A judge can:

• Grant decision-making to one parent (sole)

• Grant it to both parents (joint)

• Split it by topic between the parents (divided or "parallel" decision-making)

• Add specific conditions to any of these arrangements

Section 24 then tells the court how to choose. The judge must consider only the best interests of the child, with primary consideration given to the child's physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being. The Act lists factors the court should look at, including each parent's willingness to support the child's relationship with the other parent, the history of care, each parent's ability to communicate and cooperate, any family violence, and the child's own views where age-appropriate.

There is no presumption in favour of joint decision-making. There is also no presumption in favour of sole decision-making. The court starts from a blank slate and asks: what arrangement will actually work for these children?

Why the Court Ruled the Way It Did

Justice Hassan's decision came down to three threads woven through the evidence.

1. Both parents were capable, but neither could be trusted with sole authority.

The court heard from the children's principal, paediatrician, special support teacher, and tutoring centre representative. Every professional described both parents as involved, child-focused, and easy to work with individually. Neither parent failed the threshold test of being a fit parent. But the same evidence showed that each parent's animus toward the other consistently clouded their joint decision-making. The father videotaped exchanges in the children's presence. The mother failed to tell him for years that the children were going to live with a new partner. Granting either of them total control over the other's role would have made things worse, not better.

2. Joint decision-making was no longer realistic.

The court acknowledged the principle from McBennett v. Danis, 2021 ONSC 3610 that joint decision-making only works where, despite the parents' differences, they are able to communicate effectively in the areas under consideration for the sake of the child. That had not been true here for years. The parents could not agree on which tutor to use, which doctor to consult, or when to introduce counselling. The result was that each parent simply "did their own thing”. The child was caught in the middle and got the full benefit of neither.

3. Each parent had genuine strengths in specific areas.

This is the heart of the divided decision-making approach. The court looked at the actual history. The mother had been more open and investigative about the son's medical needs and learning supports — she had pushed earlier for ADHD assessment, Central Auditory Processing testing, and contact between the paediatrician and the school. The father had been more child-focused about extra-curricular activities and had kept the children rooted in their school community and neighbourhood. Rather than ignore those differences, the court built the order around them.

When Sole Decision-Making Is the Right Answer

Divided decision-making is not always appropriate. Ontario courts will award sole decision-making to one parent in several common scenarios:

1. Family violence. Where there has been family violence, particularly coercive or controlling behaviour, joint or divided regimes that require ongoing cooperation may be unsafe and inappropriate. Section 24(3)(j) of the CLRA requires the court to consider family violence and whether it makes co-operative arrangements workable.

2. One parent is the source of the conflict. Where both parents are loving and competent but one is clearly driving the dysfunction, courts often award sole decision-making to the other. The functional parent shouldn't be hamstrung by a non-cooperative co-parent.

3. A parent has not been involved. If one parent has been absent from major decisions for years, courts may be reluctant to suddenly insert them into the decision-making process.

4. The parents have never been able to communicate. Where the evidence shows there was never an ability to cooperate, even before the relationship broke down, joint or divided regimes may simply be unworkable.

In Vieira, none of these applied cleanly. The father claimed family violence, but the court made no finding on it. Both parents shared responsibility for the breakdown in communication. Both had been deeply involved in the children's lives. That's why divided decision-making fit, and why your own case might lead to a different outcome.

What You Should Do If You're Facing a Similar Situation

1. Talk to a family lawyer early. Decision-making disputes get worse the longer they fester. Getting legal advice before you take a major unilateral step, such as changing schools, switching doctors, or moving can save years of litigation. Most decision-making fights are not really about the decision; they're about the process that got there.

2. Document your involvement, not your grievances. Courts pay close attention to which parent has actually been making child-focused decisions. Keep records of medical appointments you've attended, school meetings you've been to, and activities you've organized. What courts find less persuasive are long records of the other parent's failings.

3. Consult the other parent — in writing. A pattern of emailing the other parent about upcoming decisions, even if they don't respond, becomes powerful evidence. The parents in Vieira both lost points with the court for unilateral decisions they could easily have flagged in advance.

4. Be realistic about what joint decision-making requires. If you cannot have a 10-minute conversation with your co-parent without it escalating, asking the court to order joint decision-making is unlikely to succeed. Divided decision-making may be a more honest, workable option.

A Few Words by Michael Iyore Law

Decision-making cases are some of the hardest family law matters we see at Michael Iyore Law. They tend to involve parents who genuinely love their children but have lost the ability to talk to each other without conflict. That dynamic means a court order needs to be carefully crafted to actually work in real life.

What Vieira v. Bettencourt shows is that Ontario courts are willing to be creative. The old binary of "sole versus joint" is no longer the only option. A judge can look closely at who has shown sound judgment in which areas, and tailor an order to match.

The trade-off is that divided decision-making puts a real obligation on both parents to consult meaningfully before exercising their final say. The court can order respectful behaviour, but it cannot force two people to genuinely respect each other. That part is up to you.

If you are worried about decision-making for your child, whether you are asking the court for sole authority, defending against that request, or trying to find a middle path, we can help you think through your options and build the strongest possible case based on the facts of your family.

Contact Us today to schedule a consultation.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and does not replace personalized legal advice. For help with your specific situation, speak to a licensed family law lawyer.