Section 16.1 — Divorce Act: Parenting order
Text of the provision Official document
A court of competent jurisdiction may make an order providing for the exercise of parenting time or decision-making responsibility in respect of any child of the marriage, on application by either or both spouses; or a person, other than a spouse, who is a parent of the child, stands in the place of a parent or intends to stand in the place of a parent. The court may, on application by a person described in subsection (1), make an interim parenting order in respect of the child, pending the determination of an application made under that subsection. A person described in paragraph (1)(b) may make an application under subsection (1) or (2) only with leave of the court. The court may, in the order, allocate parenting time in accordance with section 16.2; allocate decision-making responsibility in accordance with section 16.3; include requirements with respect to any means of communication, that is to occur during the parenting time allocated to a person, between a child and another person to whom parenting time or decision-making responsibility is allocated; and provide for any other matter that the court considers appropriate. The court may make an order for a definite or indefinite period or until a specified event occurs, and may impose any terms, conditions and restrictions that it considers appropriate. Subject to provincial law, the order may direct the parties to attend a family dispute resolution process. The order may authorize or prohibit the relocation of the child. The order may require that parenting time or the transfer of the child from one person to another be supervised. The order may prohibit the removal of a child from a specified geographic area without the written consent of any specified person or without a court order authorizing the removal.
Official source: laws-lois.justice.gc.ca
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from Canadian courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →