5,310
edits
Changes
→Changing guardianship
*can appoint another person to be a guardian of the child in the event of their death.
On the other hand, people who aren't guardians, including parents who aren't guardians, don't have ''any'' of these entitlements. They best they can hope to have is contact with the child, but they won't have day-to-day care and control of the child or day-to-date decision-making responsibility for the child when the child is with them, they're not entitled to get information about the child's health and education, and they can't object if a guardian wants to move with the child. As a result, the court will usually look at the conflict between the guardians to see whether any other options will solve the problem before taking the drastic step of removing someone's standing as a guardian. In [https://canlii.ca/t/fz3fl D. v D.], a 2013 Provincial Court decision, the court described such orders as “extreme” and to be granted only in “rare” cases:
<blockquote>[24] When considering an application to terminate a parent's guardianship, I am of the view that considering the factors enumerated in s. 37(2) of the ''Family Law Act'', termination can only occur in the most extreme situations. The approach to be taken is, first, to ask whether, through an allocation of parenting responsibilities, it continues to be in the best interests of the children that the parent remain a guardian. If it is, guardianship should not be terminated. It must be remembered that once a parent is no longer a guardian, that parent loses all parenting responsibilities and rights and is simply an adult who may have contact with the children.</blockquote>
In the 2019 decision in of [https://canlii.ca/t/hzqpb Lessard v Mahoney], the Supreme Court considered the cases to date about terminating someone's standing as a guardian, and said that:
<blockquote>[148] Accordingly, I accept that an application to remove a parent, presumptively a guardian, under s. 51(1)(b) will be granted only in extreme or rare circumstances and provided that it is in the best interests of the child. In that regard, as an alternative, the court should consider whether it is in the child’s best interest to maintain the relationship to a lesser degree by still allowing that parent’s involvement in a more limited fashion by the re-allocation of parental responsibilities as set out in ss. 40 and 41 of the FLA.</blockquote>