Ruling deems mother’s sole responsibility in children’s best interests
The Ontario Court of Justice has found a material change in circumstances warranting adjusting an existing order and granting a mother sole decision-making responsibility for two children, given the parents’ lack of effective communications, trust, or respect.
In Kale v. Santiago, 2026 ONCJ 4, the parties married in March 2015 and separated in August 2022. They had two children together, who have resided with their mother in Toronto since the separation.
Living in Pennsylvania, US, the father could not go to Canada because of his criminal record.
An October 2024 court order governed the parenting of the two children, aged nine and seven. The order gave the parties joint decision-making responsibility and granted the father specified rights to information about the children.
Both parties moved to change the parenting terms. In October 2025, the court issued final consent orders altering the existing order’s parenting time and communication terms.
In the present proceeding, the mother requested sole decision-making responsibility for the children.
The father, participating virtually, wanted to keep the October 2024 order’s decision-making terms and appoint a parenting coordinator if he and his ex-wife could not agree on major issues regarding the children.
The Ontario Court of Justice issued a final order terminating the October 2024 order’s first and second paragraphs and preventing the father from contacting the children’s school officials, doctors, or service providers without the mother’s written authorization.
The final order granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility for the children and presumptive costs as the successful party on the motions. The final order directed her to:
First, the court saw a material change in circumstances potentially or actually affecting the children’s best interests relating to decision-making responsibility, given the parties’ breakdown in communications, trust, or respect, which could potentially paralyze essential decisions in the future concerning the children.
Thus, the court found joint decision-making no longer viable or in the children’s best interests.
The court noted that the joint decision-making responsibility order worsened the parties’ conflict, increased the children’s risk of witnessing adult conflict, and enabled the father to assert control over the mother.
The court pointed out that the parties disagreed about major decisions regarding how to deal with the children’s reading proficiency, communications with the children’s public school about their religious accommodation, and the children’s exposure to an ex-partner’s domestic violence toward the mother.
Second, the court concluded that the mother’s sole decision-making responsibility would serve the children’s best interests. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that the mother:
On the other hand, the court found that the father never personally attended the children’s medical appointments, had limited in-person parenting time since the separation, and primarily maintained a relationship with the children via virtual visits.
