Sole vs Joint Decision-Making Responsibility in Ontario: Which Applies to You?

If you are separating in Ontario and have children, you will hear the phrase decision-making responsibility — the legal term that replaced "custody" under recent amendments to the Divorce Act. Understanding whether sole or joint decision-making responsibility is right for your family is one of the most consequential choices you will make in the separation process.

This article breaks down what each option means, when courts favour one over the other, and what factors matter most.

What Is Decision-Making Responsibility?

Decision-making responsibility is the authority to make significant choices in a child's life across four core areas:

1. Health — doctors, specialists, therapies, medications, surgery
2. Education — school selection, tutoring, special education programs
3. Religion and culture — faith practices, religious education, cultural upbringing
4. Significant extracurricular activities — activities that materially affect the child's schedule and the other parent's parenting time

It does not cover day-to-day decisions (what to have for dinner, what to wear, bedtimes) — each parent makes those independently during their own parenting time.

Joint Decision-Making Responsibility

Under joint decision-making responsibility, both parents share the authority to make major decisions in the child's life. Neither parent can unilaterally enrol the child in a new school, consent to a significant medical procedure, or change the child's religion without the other's agreement (or a court order).

What joint decision-making requires

Joint decision-making only functions well when parents can:

• Communicate respectfully about the child's needs
• Put aside personal grievances when the child's welfare is at stake
• Resolve disagreements without involving the child

It does not require that the parents like each other or agree on everything — only that they are able to eventually reach decisions together in the child's best interests.

When courts favour joint decision-making

Courts tend to favour joint decision-making when:

• Both parents have been meaningfully involved in the child's life
• There is no significant history of family violence or coercive control
• The parents' communication, though imperfect, is functional
• Neither parent has demonstrated a pattern of excluding the other from decisions

Sole Decision-Making Responsibility

Under sole decision-making responsibility, one parent has the legal authority to make major decisions independently. The other parent does not need to be consulted or agree.

Importantly, sole decision-making responsibility does not mean the other parent is cut off from their child. Parenting time is a separate matter — a parent with sole decision-making can still have very limited parenting time, or almost equal parenting time, depending on what the arrangement says.

When sole decision-making is appropriate

Courts consider sole decision-making responsibility in situations such as:

• A history of family violence or coercive control. Requiring an abuse survivor to jointly make decisions with an abuser can perpetuate danger and control. The Divorce Act explicitly directs courts to consider family violence.
• Chronic inability to communicate. If the parents' relationship is so adversarial that joint decision-making would effectively paralyze decisions affecting the child, a court may grant sole responsibility to the more communicative or involved parent.
• One parent is largely absent or disengaged. If one parent has had little involvement in the child's life, it may not be practical or appropriate to require them to participate in major decisions.
• Significant ideological conflict on key issues. Where parents have fundamentally irreconcilable views on, for example, a child's medical care or education, and that conflict directly harms the child, a court may resolve the impasse through a sole grant.

The "Maximum Contact" Principle

The Divorce Act includes a provision often described as the "maximum contact principle" — a general presumption that children benefit from meaningful contact with both parents, as long as it is safe and consistent with the child's best interests.

This principle supports arrangements where both parents remain involved — but it is always subordinate to the best interests of the child. If contact with one parent poses a risk to the child or to the other parent, that contact can and should be limited or structured.

Parallel Decision-Making: A Middle Ground

Some Ontario parenting agreements adopt a hybrid approach sometimes called parallel or divided decision-making:

• One parent has sole responsibility for health decisions
• The other has sole responsibility for educational decisions
• Both share responsibility for religion

This can work for parents who communicate poorly generally but can each handle a defined domain. Courts may craft these orders where the evidence supports it.

Can We Agree on This Ourselves?

Yes — and most Ontario families do. If parents reach agreement on decision-making responsibility as part of a separation agreement, courts generally respect that agreement as long as it reflects the child's best interests. A lawyer can help you draft clear, enforceable language so there is no ambiguity later about what "joint" means in practice.

What If We Disagree and Can't Resolve It?

If parents cannot agree, either may apply to the court for an order. The court will assess the relevant factors (history of care, each parent's capacity, any safety concerns, the child's views) and make an order in the child's best interests.

Frequently asked questions