View Single Post
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09-08-2017, 01:46 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,569
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default School Selection - Pazaratz

Hi All,

This topic often comes up: School selection.

Pazaratz had a busy Friday, September 1st in the Hamilton court house as both of these decisions are from that day.

They both start off with the same comment:
"This is the last Friday motions list before school starts on Tuesday..."
Both are dealing with first-time students. Both end very differently and for good reasons. If you are in a school dispute these are going to be two very key decisions to review.

As well, in both matters, there was an order for no costs.
"there shall be no order as to costs."

First one:

Payne v. Jamieson, 2017 ONSC 5243 (CanLII)
Date: 2017-09-01
Docket: 740/17
Citation: Payne v. Jamieson, 2017 ONSC 5243 (CanLII)

Lesson learned: Never leave the child's habitual residential location.

Why: Because even if you have 50-50 it will not bold well with you when it comes to school selection.

15 ...And – speaking plainly – the Respondent may at some point need to re-think whether it made sense for him to relocate his residence such a distance away, when all of his other connectors (including work) and all of the child’s other connectors (including a doctor and dentist) were in Hamilton.
Lesson learned: Alleging that the other parent is "controlling" and sharing 50-50 custody and access is not going to get you anywhere.

[3] ...The Applicant says the Respondent is domineering and controlling, and he perceives they communicate well simply because she gives in to him.

[4] Whatever those dynamics, it appears to be common ground that for an extended period of time there has been – on consent – effectively an equal timesharing arrangement.

[5] The Applicant has raised many concerns about the Respondent’s personality and behaviour – concerns which the Respondent denies. It is impossible for me to make determinations with respect to those allegations on this motion. But it is also largely unnecessary for me to do so.

[6] The reality is that even the Applicant mother is acknowledging that were it not for the fact that Lily has to start school in a few days, and were it not for the fact that the parties live so far apart, she would be quite content that the equal time sharing arrangement continue.
Second one:

Andrade v. Di Pietro, 2017 ONSC 5226 (CanLII)
Date: 2017-09-01
Docket: 908/16
Citation: Andrade v. Di Pietro, 2017 ONSC 5226 (CanLII),

Lesson learned: Nonsense allegations get you nowhere and will be ignored by an experienced judge.

Lesson learned: STABILITY matters in determining where a child will go to school even if you have 50-50. Stability in home ownership, family etc...

[12] While some very short-term dynamics may slightly favour the mother’s position, any decision about enrolling a child in a particular school must also consider longer term dynamics in terms of stability and minimizing (to the extent possible) future changes which might require a child to transfer from one school to another.

[13] In this respect, I find that the Respondent father’s proposal entails more stability (or less potential for future disruptions).
a) The Respondent owns and resides in the former matrimonial home in Ancaster. He has no intention to relocate and there is no apparent reason why he might be required to relocate.

b) In contrast the Applicant leased a home in Waterdown and moved there approximately 8 months ago. Her lease comes up at the end of October 2017. She has stated that she intends to renew the lease. But this residential arrangement still lacks the permanence of the Respondent’s home. Financial issues are still to be resolved between these parties, and presumably once property issues are resolved the Applicant will be in a position to purchase a residence. Even if the Applicant indicates she intends to remain in the same school district, it is impossible to be certain that this will occur. The Applicant says she selected Waterdown as a choice of residence partly as a result of affordability. It may well be that affordability and market conditions impact on her future selection of a residence. There is more potential that future changes in the Applicant’s residence may impact on whether a future change in schooling would be required.

c) Similarly, the Respondent is steadily employed in a management position in a family business. In contrast, the Applicant is employed on a part-time basis. It was only during the course of submissions that some particulars as to the current part-time employment were identified. The Applicant had previously held another part-time position.

d) Much of the Applicant’s argument centers on her superior availability to be with the child as a result of her current part-time employment status. But few particulars have been provided about her current or future employment plans. It is entirely foreseeable that there will be changes to her employment situation, likely with a view to full time employment. Those changes may have significant impact on the Applicant’s current availability and flexibility. Again, there are more uncertainties at the Applicant’s end than at the Respondent’s.
[14] On balance, the Respondent’s personal and residential situation appears to be more stable and less likely to be subject to changes which might affect Siana.
Good Luck!
Reply With Quote