In circumstances like these, the changes people usually look for are intended to stop parents from arguing about one or more kinds of decision, and usually people wind up asking for orders that they have sole responsibility for making those decisions. While this may be a practical solution to a difficult problem, it's often a difficult pill to swallow for the parent losing the right to have influence over decisions affecting their children, especially when the approach they would take to making decisions is guided by personal principles, beliefs and convictions. Think, for example, about deciding whether to have a child vaccinated against COVID-19, deciding on home-schooling versus public- or private-schooling, deciding on homeopathic treatments versus traditional medical care, or deciding on the religion in which the child will be instructed.
Applications to change orders about decision-making responsibilities under the ''Divorce Act'' are made under section 17 of the act.
Applications to change orders about parental responsibilities under the ''Family Law Act'' are made under section 47 of the act, while applications to change awards about parental responsibilities are made under section 19.18(3) and applications to set aside agreements about parental responsibilities are made under section 44(4).
Before going this route, however, it's important to know that section 49 of the ''Family Law Act''
The ''[[Family Law Act]]'' provides a test to vary orders about parental responsibilities and a test to set aside agreements about parental responsibilities. Section 44(4) talks about agreements:
<blockquote><tt>... the court must set aside or replace with an order made under this Division all or part of an agreement respecting parenting arrangements if satisfied that the agreement is not in the best interests of the child.</tt></blockquote>
Section 47 talks about orders: <blockquote><tt>fla... a court may change, suspend or terminate an order respecting parenting arrangements if satisfied that, since the making of the order, there has been a change in the needs or circumstances of the child, including because of a change in the circumstances of another person.</tt></blockquote> Under both tests, the court must also consider why the proposed result would or wouldn't be in the best interests of the child. XXX old custody A 1996 case of the Supreme Court of Canada called ''[http://canlii.ca/t/1fr99 Gordon v. Goertz]'', [1996] 2 SCR 27, sets out the factors a court must consider when hearing an application to vary orders for custody or access made under the ''[[Divorce Act]]'': *The parent applying for a change in the custody or access order must first prove that there has been a material change in the circumstances affecting the child.*If this threshold is met, the judge on the application must make a fresh assessment about what is in the best interests of the child, considering all of the relevant facts relating to the child's needs and the ability of each parent to satisfy the child's needs.*This assessment is based on the findings of the judge who made the previous order, as well as the new circumstances.*The assessment does not begin with a legal presumption in favour of the parent with whom the child mostly lives, although that parent's views are entitled to great respect.*The focus is on the best interests of the child, not the interests, rights, and entitlements of the parents. In other words, the applicant must show that there has been a serious change in circumstances that affects the child's best interests before a court will even consider the application. Once this hurdle is crossed, the court will look at all of the circumstances before making a decision, as if the case was being heard for the first time. Most importantly, this means that there is no automatic presumption in favour of the status quo. Cases where an order for custody has been varied include circumstances such as where: *The change is in the best interests of the children in the long run.*The parent with the children's primary residence has attempted to alienate the children from the other parent.*The parent with the children's primary residence has repeatedly frustrated the other parent's access to the children.*The child has been apprehended by child protection workers.*The child has been abused by the parent whom the child primarily lives with.*A mature child has expressed a wish to live with the other parent. The courts are unlikely to change custody where the children are happy in an existing stable and secure setting.mediation
==Changing parenting time and contact==