On Global News, Alyssa Bach, Associate Lawyer at Shulman & Partners LLP, discussed a precedent-setting Ontario decision about children returning to school during COVID-19. In this case, separated parents could not agree on whether their nine-year-old son should attend in-person classes or continue online learning. The court ultimately ordered that the child return to the classroom, despite the father’s concerns about COVID-19. Alyssa explained why the judge’s reasoning matters for other Ontario families, how the “best interests of the child” test is applied in a pandemic, and why courts are looking closely at provincial health guidance. She also highlighted the growing number of disputes her firm is seeing around schooling, parenting time, and risk concerns, and stressed the importance of parents resolving these issues outside the court system wherever possible.
“Our firm is definitely noticing a growing number of cases dealing with parents who can't agree on these decisions as it's relating to going back to school and parenting time, and the emphasis needs to be made that it needs to be what's in the child's best interest, not what's in the parents best interest.”
— Alyssa Bach, Associate Lawyer at Shulman & Partners LLP
In the interview, Alyssa walked listeners through a recent Ontario Superior Court decision involving separated parents who disagreed on whether their nine-year-old son should return to in-person school during the COVID-19 pandemic. The mother argued that the child struggled with online learning, had no underlying medical conditions, and lived in a household without known high-risk factors. The father accepted that virtual school was difficult but believed the public health risks of in-person attendance were too great. When they could not resolve the issue between themselves, they turned to the court.
Alyssa explained that the judge’s ruling in favour of a return to the classroom was less about choosing one parent over the other and more about how courts are treating government guidance. The decision confirmed that Ontario courts are not there to second-guess the provincial decision to reopen schools. Instead, judges will start from the assumption that in-person schooling is acceptable where allowed by the government, and then ask whether there is evidence, in that particular family, that returning to school is not in the child’s best interests.
She noted that different facts could lead to a different outcome. Situations involving an immunocompromised child, medically vulnerable family members, or unique household risks may justify keeping a child home. Each case will still turn on its own circumstances, but parents should be prepared to show concrete evidence of risk rather than general fears.
Alyssa also shared that Shulman & Partners LLP has seen a noticeable increase in disputes about schooling and parenting schedules during the pandemic. Many co-parents are reassessing routines, questioning each other’s COVID-19 precautions, and worrying about exposure as children move between homes. At the same time, the family court system is facing significant backlogs, with months-long waits for regular hearing dates.
Because of this, Alyssa emphasized the value of staying out of court wherever possible. She encouraged parents to begin with open, child-focused conversations. Where direct discussion is difficult, families can involve a trusted third party, such as a mutual friend, mediator, parenting coordinator, or their lawyers, to help negotiate practical solutions. The goal, she stressed, is to keep the child’s needs at the centre and to use this precedent as guidance, not as a reason to rush into litigation.
Listen to the full Global News segment here.
This media appearance is part of Shulman & Partners LLP’s ongoing contributions to Canadian family law discussions. Explore more of our media features in our In the Media archive.