An Ontario judge has ordered an 11-year-old to attend school in his mother’s catchment area after a dispute between his parents kept him out of class for the first four weeks of the school year.
In Miller v. Hartung, 2026 ONSC 5527, reasons released October 1, Justice J. Breithaupt Smith of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered housing uncertainty, the demands of a lengthy commute and the child’s best interests. The temporary order addresses school enrolment and participation; it does not decide whether the mother may relocate permanently.
A housing problem becomes a school dispute
The mother had sought to move with the child from Wellesley to Mount Forest, roughly an hour’s drive away, because she could not find accessible housing in Waterloo Region. A May settlement permitted the move on conditions that included continuing the father’s parenting time and the mother not seeking to relocate permanently to Mount Forest. It did not settle decision-making responsibility.
The mother subsequently remained unable to secure housing in the Wellesley area. In late August, she attempted to enrol the child in Mount Forest without advising the father, who contested the enrolment.
The father wanted the child to stay at school in Wellesley. He offered to undertake some of the driving, and the reasons also record an offer of an additional $280 a month to help with transportation costs. The child had friends and familiar teachers in Wellesley, where his academic life had been stable.
But the judge found uncertainty on both sides. Two jointly owned residences were likely to be sold, leaving both parents’ long-term housing unsettled. Even if the mother returned to Waterloo Region, the location of any available housing might not put her close to the Wellesley school.
The limits of stability
The court applied the child’s best-interests framework under the Children’s Law Reform Act. The judge acknowledged the possibility of repeated school changes but concluded that future moves might be unavoidable. There was no certainty that the child could remain at the Wellesley school indefinitely.
The judge also considered the mother’s allegations of family violence, which the father had not disputed on the evidentiary record before the court. Those allegations formed part of the judge’s assessment of the proposed two-hour daily school commute. The reasons describe them as allegations; this school-enrolment decision should not be read as a final determination of the parents’ broader dispute.
The child’s lawyer reported that he wanted to continue living primarily with his mother and attend school where she lived. Her assessment was preliminary: she had not yet properly assessed the consistency of his views or interviewed people such as teachers to put them in context. The judge expressly acknowledged those limitations.
On the evidence available for the urgent motion, the judge concluded that enrolment in the mother’s catchment area served the child’s best interests. Maintaining his parenting time with his father remained critical.
What the temporary order changes
The mother receives primary decision-making responsibility only for school enrolment and participation. The father must be listed equally on enrolment documents and have equal access to school information and resources.
The mother must transport the child for Tuesday and Wednesday evening parenting time. The father, or someone he designates, must handle transportation for his alternate weekends. Transportation costs do not change child support unless the parents agree or the court orders otherwise.
Each parent must pay their own costs of the motion. The judge described success as divided.
The ruling illustrates how housing constraints can affect an immediate school decision after separation. Its reach is limited: the court resolved an urgent enrolment impasse, while leaving the broader mobility question undecided.
