What is the test for “beneficial” in the context of access?

[136] “Beneficial” requires the trier of fact to decide whether, overall, the relationship between the child and the parent is a benefit for the child. This is not a comparative analysis: the question is whether, taking everything into account, access between the child and his father would be good for the child. The analysis is made on an objective standard – the court is asked to decide whether an access relationship would be good for the child – nothing more than that. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. J.L., 2017 ONSC 2380.

[137] “Meaningful” requires the trier of fact to assess the subjective importance of access for the child. This is separate from the question of whether the access would be “beneficial”, a question that requires an objective assessment of the advantages of access for the child. Of course there is some overlap between “beneficial” and “meaningful” – one of the “benefits” of access is continuation of a close family bond between parent and child – something that, by definition, would be meaningful to the child would also be a benefit. Some of the case law seems to combine the two questions – “beneficial” and “meaningful” – into one analysis – “beneficial and meaningful”. In my respectful opinion these two analyses ought not to be conflated. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. J.L., 2017 ONSC 2380.