Equal Time Isn't Always Equal: What a Recent Decision Means for Parenting Plans for Young Children

This article was completed by our parenting coordinator, Vivian Merklinger and one of our articling students, Lisa Chung.

A recent Ontario Divisional Court decision, Tremblay-Chartier v. Blanchette 2025 ONSC 6273, is a useful reminder that an equal time schedule may not be what is best for a 15-month-old child.

On a motion, the judge ordered that a 15-month-old child spend equal time with each parent. On appeal, the Divisional Court noted that this order departed from the approach recommended in the AFCC-Ontario Parenting Plan Guide without any reasons offered by the motion judge as to why this departure was in the best interests of the child. The Guide draws on child development research to suggest parenting schedules that fit a child's age and stage.

The Divisional Court set the order aside. At paragraph 40, the Court said that if a judge departs from established and widely accepted social science research, the judge needs to give reasons for doing so.

Why this matters

The Court accepted that the AFCC-O Guide is not binding law. Still, the decision suggests a shift in how courts may treat it. The Guide may start to work much like the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG). The SSAG aren't binding either, but in practice courts are expected to explain themselves when they reach a result outside them.

If that's the direction, the AFCC-O Guide becomes more than background reading. It could become a benchmark that judges, lawyers, and parents are expected to deal with directly when proposing or ordering a parenting schedule.

Takeaways for Parents

• Start with the child's developmental stage. For infants and toddlers, how often and how predictably they see each parent can matter more than an exact split of time.

• Know the Guide. If you're proposing a schedule outside its recommendations, be ready to explain why it serves this particular child.

• Equal time is not a presumption. The focus stays on the child's best interests, informed by the research.

• Plan for change. Schedules for very young children often work best when they're designed to change as the child grows.

• Build the evidentiary record. Evidence about the child's routines, history of care, attachment and developmental needs helps the court connect the statutory factors to the research.

• Tie proposals to the statutory factors. A schedule framed around s. 16 of the Divorce Act or s. 24 of the CLRA, rather than around what each parent is "owed," is more persuasive and more likely to hold up on appeal.
  

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice.