Why Ang v. Ang Matters: Clarity on Decision-Making and Family Violence in Parenting Disputes
In family law, decisions about who the child lives with and who makes important parenting choices can be contentious and deeply impactful. The recent Ontario Superior Court decision in Ang v. Ang offers a detailed application of legal principles surrounding decision-making responsibility, considering not just the child’s best interests but also family violence and coercive control.
This case highlights how courts weigh stability, safety, and cooperation when determining primary residence and decision-making authority. It also shows the vital role that expert assessments play in shaping outcomes, including how parenting time is managed when concerns arise. Ang v. Ang is a useful guidepost for understanding how Ontario courts approach these difficult questions today.
1. Decision-Making Responsibility and Best Interests under CLRA, s. 24
Court decisions on where a child lives and who makes key parenting decisions hinge on the “best interests of the child.” Using legal frameworks like Gordon v. Goertz, judges assess stability, history of care, and the parent’s ability to meet the child’s needs.
- The Court confirmed the child’s primary residence should stay with the Applicant (usually the parent seeking residence).
- Sole decision-making authority was granted to the Applicant, emphasizing the importance of stability and consistency for the child.
- The decision underscores that best interests involve a thorough assessment of care history and each parent’s capacity.
2. Family Violence and Coercive Control Affect Joint Decision-Making (CLRA, s. 24(3)(j), s. 24(4)-(5))
Allegations of coercive control and threats are not taken lightly and can significantly impact parenting arrangements and decision-making responsibilities.
- The Court found aggressive and accusatory communications from one party towards the other.
- These dynamics undermined the ability of the parents to cooperate, critical for joint decision-making.
- As a result, joint decision-making was rejected to protect the child’s wellbeing and encourage a stable environment.
- Relevant case law like Barendregt v. Grebliunas was referenced to inform this approach.
3. Expert Assessments under CLRA, s. 30 – When Courts Rely on Specialist Reports
Expert evaluations are often crucial in family disputes, but courts must decide whether to accept them based on credibility and relevance.
- The Court accepted the s. 30 assessment report as part of the evidence under s. 30(9).
- Allegations that the assessment was biased or outdated were dismissed.
- Recommendations from the report were persuasive and largely adopted by the Court to guide custody and decision-making.
- Cases such as C.C. v. S.C. and Knapp v. Knapp were considered to ensure proper evaluation of the expert evidence.
4. Parenting Time and Supervision: Courts Will Maintain Schedules Unless Serious Concern Arises
When it comes to a parent’s time with the child, courts balance concerns raised by experts with the goal of preserving meaningful contact and stability.
- Despite concerns noted by the assessor, the Court declined to require supervised parenting time.
- Historical supervised parenting (such as prior monitored visits) was noted but not determinative here.
- The existing weekday and Saturday parenting schedule was maintained.
- The Court did not mandate coaching or counselling, but made these supports optional to promote positive change.
What This Signals for Parents
Ang v. Ang sends a clear message: Courts prioritize a stable home environment and the child’s best interests above all else, but where there is evidence of coercive control or family violence, joint decision-making may be off the table. Trustworthy expert reports remain key in informing the Court’s decisions, but maintaining meaningful parenting time is also important unless there are compelling reasons to restrict it.
Parents navigating disputes are reminded to focus on cooperative communication and to engage with any recommended assessments or supports. Stability and the child’s wellbeing guide how decision-making authority and parenting time are ultimately structured.
This blog post provides general information about recent case law and is not legal advice. For advice on your specific family law matter, please consult a qualified lawyer.
How will courts continue to balance safety and cooperation in parenting disputes going forward?