By Maria Golarz, Senior Associate Research Lawyer, Lam Family Law*

Disparaging Comments Are Not in a Child’s Best Interests

The case law is clear that speaking negatively about the other parent to or within earshot of a child is not in a child’s best interests.

In Haaksma v. Taylor, 2021 ONSC 4831 (CanLII), Justice Chown held that “[i]t is in the best interests of a child that each parent help foster the child’s relationship with the other parent; it is contrary to the best interests of a child for a parent to disparage or denigrate the other parent to or in front of the child.” This conduct is “immature and selfish”: paras 17-18.

More recently, in Kolobutin v. Kolobutin, 2024 ONSC 4282 (CanLII), Justice Fitzpatrick included a non-disparagement clause, but held that “[t]his should be something that need not be made subject of an express order. However, in this case, I hope both parties will abide by this in future. Also, it is not designed to be used as a platform to lay traps for the other in the hopes of gaining advantage in future proceedings. It is a direction that is in the best interests of the Children”: para 22.

Similarly, in Tillger v. Tillger, 2019 ONSC 1463 (CanLII), Justice Ricchetti held that “[c]hildren can be easily and significantly impacted by hearing conflict between their parents and by parents making disparaging comments regarding the other parent. This needs to stop”: paras 169-170.

Denigrating the other parent to or in front of the child may also fall under the broad definition of “family violence” as set out in s. 2(1) of the Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp). In Tone v. Tone, 2021 ONSC 3747 (CanLII), Justice Fowler Byrne discussed how the definition of family violence following the 2021 amendments to the Divorce Act goes beyond a physical assault and may include denigration of the other parent: paras 33-34 & 40. This was recently re-iterated by Justice Chappel in J.M.M. v. C.R.M, 2025 ONSC 3067 (CanLII), at para 291.

Communication and Non-Disparagement Clauses

When making a parenting order under either the Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), or the Children’s Law Reform Act, RSO 1990, c C.12, the court may make an order regarding the parents’ communication, including a non-disparagement clause.

Pursuant to s. 16.1(4)(c) of the Divorce Act, the court may, as part of a parenting order, “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”.

Pursuant to s. 28(1)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court may, as part of a parenting order,

  • (i) limit the duration, frequency, manner or location of contact or communication between any of the parties, or between a party and the child.
  • (ii) prohibit a party or other person from engaging in specified conduct in the presence of the child or at any time when the person is responsible for the care of the child.

The court commonly orders non-disparagement clauses in high conflict matters. A non-disparagement clause typically requires that neither party denigrate, disparage, or make negative comments about the other parent in front of, to the children or third parties, or within earshot of the children, nor permit others to do so. Such a clause is “standard and appropriate to high conflict parenting cases”: Morrison v. Harder, 2021 ONSC 5107 (CanLII), at para 138.

In Morrison v. Harder (2021), Justice Raikes made a detailed parenting order comprising 31 terms and conditions, including:

  • (a) Neither party will disparage the other nor permit any other adult to do so in [the child’s] presence.
  • (b) All communications between the parties shall be by email or text using a parenting app. If they cannot agree on the parenting app to use, they will use My Family Wizard.
  • (c) All communications between the parties shall be amicable and respectful.
  • (d) All communications between the parties shall be child focused.
  • (e) Neither party will send messages to the other through [the child].
  • (f) The parties shall not engage in any conflict, direct or indirect, in [the child’s] presence.
  • (g) Neither party will discuss adult issues with [the child]. For greater certainty, such discussions include, but are not limited to, any litigation involving [the child] or her siblings, any current or past conflicts between the parties…
  • (h) The parties shall encourage a positive relationship between [the child] and the other parent and shall do nothing that would estrange or alienate [the child] from the other parent.
  • (i) Neither parent will post anything on social media that is disparaging of the other parent.
  • : Morrison v. Harder, ibid, at paras 178(23)-(28), 178(31), 178(42), & 178(44).

Other suggestions on how to phrase communication terms are included further below.

The court may alternatively encourage more positive communication by imposing a review with clear expectations on what type of evidence it will consider on the review hearing. This approach was used by Justice Conlan in C.C. v. S.C., 2022 ONSC 2306 (CanLII), where the mother had made damning and serious unfounded allegations with respect to the father’s treatment of the child (aged 11). Justice Conlan did not believe the mother’s assertion that she never disparaged the father in front of the child and noted that encouraging false allegations was not supporting the child. The mother’s in-person parenting time was suspended and she was limited to supervised phone calls with the child for three months, pending a review. The court provided directions for the review, including that the onus was on the mother to satisfy the court that a resumption of in-person parenting time was in the child’s best interests. Instead of ordering a traditional non-disparagement clause, the court noted that the type of evidence it would be looking for on the review included: “[The mother] demonstrating meaningful insight into the impact of her conduct…; [the mother] admitting that she was wrong with respect to each of her many allegations about [the father’s treatment of the child]; an apology to [the child and the father] for the harm she has caused; [and] acknowledging that [the father] is a safe, loving and protective parent”: paras 17, 20-21, 29-32, 45, & Appendix “A”.

See also Martel v. Nguyen, 2021 ONSC 3940 (CanLII), at para 30(f) [both parents shall teach children “to love and respect” the other parent].

Other Impacts of Disparaging or Denigrating the Other Parent on Parenting Orders

Non-disparagement and communication clauses may be incorporated into parenting orders to address a parent disparaging and/or denigrating the other parent. However, such conduct may impact other aspects of a parenting order as well, including parenting time and decision-making responsibility.

As part of its best interests analysis, the court shall consider each parent’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other parent: Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), s. 16(3)(c) & Children’s Law Reform Act, RSO 1990, c C.12, s. 24(3)(c).

Where a parent demonstrates that they are “not readily willing or able to support the development of” the child’s relationship with the other parent, for example, by regularly denigrating the other parent in front of the children, this may lead the court to order sole decision-making responsibility to the more friendly parent: see, e.g., E.B. v. M.J., 2021 ONCJ 440 (CanLII), at paras 1, 161, & 176 & F.H. v. M.S., 2024 ONSC 5560 (CanLII), at paras 182-199, 244-247, 267-269, & 346.

The court may also order supervision on parenting time where a parent engages in consistent and ongoing denigration of the other parent to or within earshot of the child: see, e.g., N.S. v. A.N.S., 2021 ONSC 5283 (CanLII), at paras 160, 408(4), & 488 & M.H.S. v. M.R., 2021 ONCJ 665 (CanLII), at paras 89-90, 94, & 108(d), subsequent proceedings at M.H.S.S. v. M.R., 2022 ONCJ 550 (CanLII), at para 331(5).

If a non-disparagement order has previously been made, and a parent continues to run afoul of this term, the court may take this into consideration when making any further orders about decision-making responsibility, or parenting time, including the need for supervision on a short or long-term basis: see, e.g., Olaskey v. Olaskey, 2024 ONSC 140 (CanLII), at paras 64-65, 70-72, & 86-87.

Sample Clause Wording

Below we have included communication and non-disparagement clauses we’ve seen ordered recently, which may assist in crafting a similar term for a draft Order:

  • “Neither parent shall denigrate or be critical of the other parent either overtly or covertly, in any communication with the children or with others when the children are present or nearby, regardless of whether or not it appears the children can hear the comments. The parents shall advise others to maintain the same standard and to refrain from criticizing the other parent in front of [the child(ren)]”: Clarke v. Denyes, 2025 ONSC 1894 (CanLII), at para 274, Mathen J.
  • “Neither parent is to disparage, slander, or speak negatively about the other parent on social media, or in the presence of the child, nor allow others to do so.”: R.L. v. B.M., 2025 ONSC 189 (CanLII), at para 239(2) (following 239(11)), Tobin J.
  • “Neither party shall criticize or denigrate the other parent in [the child’s/children’s] presence when [the child(ren) is/are] in their care, nor will they allow third parties to do so. The parties will be held accountable for the conduct of third parties who engage in such behaviour in [the child’s/children’s] presence.”: Aslam v Janakovic, 2024 ONSC 5135 (CanLII), at para 35(8), Jarvis J.
  • “All communication between the parties shall be respectful. Neither party shall criticize, demean, or make disparaging comments about the other.”: Bitondo v. Nwaja, 2024 ONCJ 222 (CanLII), at para 154(i)(ii), Kapurura J.

*with thanks to Kayleigh Pink for her suggestions and edits.