Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Parenting Time Variation in Diaz v. Bol, 2025 ONCA 277

Ten years of a child's growth may constitute a material change in circumstances.

Summary and Legal Analysis: Family Law Appeal Involving Parenting Schedule, Vaccinations, Child Support, and Imputed Income

In Diaz v. Bol, 2025 ONCA 277, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed a self-represented mother’s appeal of an order that significantly revised the parties’ parenting schedule and adjusted child support. This case provides essential clarification on how Ontario courts approach material change in circumstances, the best interests of the child, and income imputation in the context of parenting time variations.

Case Background: Parenting Order Subject to Review

Karen Diaz and Brent Bol, both acting as self-represented litigants, are parents to two children. In 2013, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a final parenting order with limited parenting time for Mr. Bol and a review clause permitting "variation" (i.e., a change) after five years (para. 2).

In 2019, Mr. Bol brought a motion to vary the parenting time under subrule 25(12) of the Family Law Rules, arguing that a material change in circumstances had occurred. Ms. Diaz opposed the motion.

The motion judge, Justice L. Fryer, granted a substantial variation in a new order dated January 24, 2024. The new order contained 32 provisions. Ms. Diaz appealed 20 of those provisions (para. 3).

⚖️ Legal Issues on Appeal: Material Change, Child Support, and Vaccine Autonomy

1. Was there a material change in circumstances?

Yes. The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge made no error in finding a material change in circumstances. The children were now 10 years older than when the original order was made, and they had consistently expressed a desire to spend more time with their father. These facts justified a parenting time variation (para. 5).

2. Why was a week-about parenting schedule imposed?

The parties had significant conflict and poor communication. The motion judge simplified the parenting schedule to alternating full weeks, thereby reducing conflict and avoiding frequent exchanges. The Court of Appeal found that the decision promoted stability and the best interests of the children, as required by section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act (para. 7).

3. Who decided whether the children should be vaccinated?

The motion judge determined that the children were sufficiently mature to make their own medical decisions regarding vaccinations. The judge ordered that both parents refrain from interference and that the children receive advice from their family doctor. The Court of Appeal agreed that this was an appropriate balancing of parental rights and child autonomy (para. 11).

4. How did the court address capital gains in child support?

The respondent had sold a property, triggering a capital gain. The motion judge included 50% of the adjusted and grossed-up capital gain in the respondent’s income, a method consistent with established child support case law. The appeal court found no error in this approach (para. 8).

5. Was the mother’s income imputed?

Yes. The court upheld the imputation of income to Ms. Diaz. She had reduced her work hours to care for the children and manage household duties. However, the motion judge concluded that this choice was not financially sustainable, and that Ms. Diaz had a legal obligation to contribute to the children’s support. This is in line with the Federal Child Support Guidelines, ss. 19(1)(a) (para. 9).

6. What about legal costs?

Despite mixed success at trial, the respondent was successful on the central issue—parenting time. The motion judge ordered Ms. Diaz to pay $10,000 in costs, to be deducted from arrears owing by Mr. Bol. The Court of Appeal upheld this discretionary decision, and awarded an additional $1,500 in costs for the appeal (paras. 10, 13).

Takeaways from Diaz v. Bol, 2025 ONCA 277

• Material Change in Circumstances in Parenting Cases: A decade of growth and children’s evolving preferences can justify variation in parenting orders.

• Best Interests of the Child Prevail: Simplified parenting schedules and minimizing conflict are key considerations under Ontario family law.

• Income Imputation Must Be Evidence-Based: Voluntary underemployment may result in imputed income to ensure both parents meet their child support obligations.

• Parental Disputes over Vaccines: Mature minors may make their own medical decisions when properly supported by professional advice.

• Appellate Deference in Family Law: Unless there's a clear legal error or a palpable and overriding factual mistake, appellate courts will defer to motion judges.

If you'd like to discuss the details of your situation and understand your rights and obligations, feel free to book a consultation.