In the recent Ontario Court of Justice decision, Skiffington v. Parsons, 2025 ONCJ 66, para. 9, Justice Jennifer Daudlin addressed multiple parenting issues, including summer parenting schedules, structured travel provisions and transportation responsibilities. The decision underscores the necessity of co-operation between parents and facilitating parenting time to safeguard the children’s best interests, consistent with s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

The parties’ relationship was fraught with issues such as addiction, infidelity, financial struggles and allegations of family violence (para. 29). Upon hearing the evidence, the court made several findings including but not limited to the following findings: that it is a high-conflict case for which both parties are equally responsible, that the conflict is being fuelled by the parties’ supporters, and that it is in the best interests of the children to ensure that parenting terms are clear and structured (para.29).

It is a well-established principle that children benefit from forming close attachments to both parents. Although the maximum contact principle is no longer enshrined in the Divorce Act, s. 24(6) of the Children’s Law Reform Act reflects a similar sentiment: that children should have as much time with each parent as is consistent with the best interests of the child. Here, while the parties have previously filed an agreement respecting decision-making responsibility and the regular parenting schedule to be incorporated into the final order (para. 2), the summer parenting schedule was an issue before the court.

The father requested a week-about schedule. Ultimately, the court agreed that despite any disruption to structured programs such as summer camps, fostering a close and loving relationship between the father and his children was in their best interests (paras. 30-35). The balancing of considerations may have been further influenced by the court’s finding that the mother and her spouse have previously frustrated parenting time (para. 29).

The mother’s position that rigid requirements and requiring the father’s consent for extended travel could limit the children’s opportunities and may lead to delays or conflicts was untenable. The court imposed a 60-day notice requirement for international travel, and mandated consent for trips longer than eight nights to prevent one parent from making unilateral decisions that could interfere with parenting time (para. 40).

Given that both parties and their extended family members were found to have engaged in family violence, the court acknowledged the negative impact that such exposure can have on the children (para. 20). As such, it was not an appropriate situation for a flexible arrangement, and it was in the children’s best interests to ensure parenting terms were clear and structured to avoid potential conflict.

Courts often rule that the access parent is responsible for pickup and drop-off, therefore often consider it reasonable to impose said responsibility on them (Carss v. Carss, [1995] O.J. No. 234, para. 4). Since the mother and children had relocated to Peterborough, Ont., the father had assumed full responsibility for transportation to exercise his access.

While the mother maintained that the father should continue being responsible for all transportation, the court found that this placed an undue burden on the father. It ordered that the parents share the transportation responsibility equally, with exchanges taking place at a midpoint location. Though this is not typical, the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act grant the court the authority to order shared transportation responsibility as part of custody and access arrangements (Dookie v Surujmohan, 2017 ONSC 6073, para. 26).

While the mother maintained that the father should continue being responsible for all transportation, the court found that this placed an undue burden on the father. It ordered that the parents share the transportation responsibility equally, with exchanges taking place at a midpoint location. Though this is not typical, the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act grant the court the authority to order shared transportation responsibility as part of custody and access arrangements (Dookie v.  Surujmohan, 2017 ONSC 6073, para. 26)

Interestingly, the court also granted the father’s request to be credited for the transportation cost, finding it was a fair adjustment of his past child support obligation (Skiffington, para. 85). The father had made reasonable efforts to request the mother’s co-operation and assistance with transportation but they were refused (para. 85). This decision marks an important acknowledgement that one parent should not bear the entire burden, especially where the parent is taking on substantial costs and has made reasonable attempts for co-operation. Such logistical battles only fuel conflict and may become a fight for power, rather than a concern for the children’s best interests.

The father was unsuccessful in his pre-emptive request to change parenting time should he relocate closer to the children, and the issue was not properly pleaded. The argument that the pre-emptive change would minimize potential conflict and create a smoother transition for the children failed (paras. 47-48). Absent actual evidence of a material change, the position is speculative and does not serve the children’s current best interests (para. 48). This decision represents a reasonable balance of trying to minimize conflict while maintaining stability and prioritizing the children’s immediate well-being. This decision does not however prevent the father from making the motion to change once the relocation has taken place (para. 48).

The decision in Skiffington applies the best interests analysis, underscoring the importance of fostering the children’s relationship with their father and encouraging co-operation between parents. The court sought to minimize potential areas for conflict between the parents to minimize the potential detrimental impact on the children. Further, the court’s recognition that placing such a burden on one parent in the face of reasonable efforts to resolve the issue serves as a clear message that whenever possible, parents must make their best efforts to be co-operative with each other.

Michael J. Stangarone is a partner and Isabel Brisson, student with MacDonald & Partners LLP, where they practice exclusively family law.

The opinions expressed are those of the authors) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author's firm, its clients, LexisNexis Canada, Law360 Canada, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Press the button below to read the PDF version, or directly on Law360.