Section 24 Children's Law Reform Act: Best Interests Factors in Ontario

Every parenting decision in Ontario family court comes back to one question: what is in the best interests of the child? Section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA) answers that question with a structured list of factors that judges must consider.

Understanding these factors matters because they tell you exactly what the court is evaluating — and what your Form 35.1 Affidavit, your proposed parenting plan, and your evidence at trial need to address.

The Overriding Principle

Section 24(1) establishes that the court "shall consider only the best interests of the child" when making any order regarding decision-making responsibility (formerly custody) or parenting time (formerly access). No other consideration — including the parent's desires, convenience, or perceived rights — overrides this standard.

The CLRA was amended in 2021 to align with parallel changes to the federal Divorce Act, ensuring that married and unmarried parents are evaluated under consistent criteria regardless of which statute governs their case.

The Statutory Factors

Section 24(2) lists the factors the court must consider. No single factor is automatically decisive — the court weighs all of them together based on the specific facts of each case.

The Child's Needs and Circumstances

The court considers the child's physical, emotional, and psychological needs at their current developmental stage. A two-year-old's needs (short separations, consistent routines, proximity to a primary attachment figure) are fundamentally different from a fourteen-year-old's (peer relationships, academic demands, emerging independence).

This factor also encompasses the child's need for stability. Courts are generally reluctant to disrupt arrangements that are working — a child who is thriving in their current school, neighbourhood, and social network will not be uprooted without a compelling reason.

The Relationship Between the Child and Each Parent

The strength, depth, and nature of the child's emotional bond with each parent is central to the analysis. Courts look at:

• Which parent was the primary caregiver before separation
• The quality of time each parent spends with the child (engaged parenting versus passive supervision)
• Whether the child has a secure, trusting attachment to each parent
• How the child responds to each parent — comfort level, expressed preferences, observable anxiety

Relationships with siblings, grandparents, and other significant people in the child's life are also considered. The court prefers arrangements that keep siblings together unless there's a specific reason not to.

The Child's Views and Preferences

The child's expressed wishes are considered, weighted by the child's age, maturity, and independence of judgment. There is no "magic age" in Ontario law where a child gets to choose. A six-year-old's preference for the parent who has a swimming pool carries minimal weight. A fifteen-year-old's articulate, consistent, and independently formed preference carries substantial weight.

The court is alert to coached or influenced preferences. If a child's stated wishes mirror one parent's language, reference adult legal concepts, or change depending on which parent they spoke to most recently, the court may discount those views or request an investigation by the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

At age 16, an Ontario child can withdraw from the parenting arrangement entirely. While the court order remains technically in effect, forcing a 16-year-old into a schedule they reject is rarely in their best interests.

Willingness to Support the Other Parental Relationship

This factor has become increasingly important since the 2021 amendments. The court evaluates each parent's willingness to:

• Foster and encourage the child's relationship with the other parent
• Speak positively (or at least neutrally) about the other parent in the child's presence
• Facilitate parenting time without obstruction, delay, or sabotage
• Share information about the child's health, education, and activities

A parent who consistently undermines the other parent's relationship — cancelling visits, making negative comments, restricting phone contact, turning the child into a messenger or spy — will face adverse consequences. Courts view this behaviour as harmful to the child and contrary to their best interests.

Ability to Communicate and Cooperate

Joint decision-making responsibility requires parents who can work together on major decisions. If the evidence shows that every email about a dental appointment turns into a three-day argument, the court is unlikely to order joint decision-making regardless of what both parents request.

This factor interacts with the conflict level: high-conflict parents may receive a parallel parenting arrangement (each parent makes decisions during their own time) rather than the cooperative co-parenting model that joint decision-making requires.

Family Violence

The 2021 amendments elevated family violence from a general consideration to a detailed, multi-part analysis. The court must consider:

• The nature and severity of the violence
• How recently it occurred and whether there's a pattern
• Whether the violence was directed at the child, the other parent, or both
• The physical and emotional harm caused to the child (including harm from witnessing violence)
• Whether there's a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour
• Whether the violent parent has taken steps to address their behaviour

The presence of family violence does not automatically disqualify a parent from parenting time, but it shapes the terms — supervised access, restricted communication, no-contact provisions, sole decision-making to the other parent.

Cultural, Linguistic, and Spiritual Heritage

The court must consider the child's cultural identity and the importance of maintaining connections to their heritage. This includes language, religion, cultural practices, and community ties.

For Indigenous children, specific provisions require the court to consider the child's connection to their First Nation, Metis, or Inuit community and the importance of preserving that cultural identity. This factor carries particular weight in cases involving Indigenous families.

Plans for the Child's Care

The court evaluates each parent's proposed parenting plan — not just the schedule, but the practical details of how they intend to care for the child. A credible, detailed plan that addresses school, medical care, extracurriculars, and contingencies demonstrates that the parent has thought seriously about the child's daily needs.

A vague plan ("I'll figure it out") or an unrealistic one (a parent with a demanding travel schedule proposing a 50/50 rotation) undermines credibility.

Using Section 24 in Your Case

The Ontario Child Custody & Parenting Plan Guide structures your Form 35.1 preparation around these exact statutory factors — helping you build an affidavit that addresses each factor the court will consider, with specific evidence rather than general assertions.

See more Ontario guides →