“As the parties were not married, the parenting issues in this case are governed by the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 (CLRA). Section 29 of that Act states that the court shall not vary a parenting order unless there has been a material change in circumstances that affects, or is likely to affect, the best interests of the child. Although the legislation itself does not set out a specific test to varying an interim order, the courts have held that the change must be one that results in a compelling reason to vary the previous order. See Radojevic v. Radojevic, 2020 ONSC 5868, 324 A.C.W.S. (3d) 233 – [2020] CarswellOnt 14013, where Kurz J. refers to para. 26 of Miranda v. Miranda, 2013 ONSC 4704 (Ont. S.C.J.) and Justice Mitrow’s summary of the law:
A party wishing to disturb an interim status quo or vary an interim order faces a strong onus to produce cogent and compelling evidence to show that the physical, mental and moral welfare of a child would be in danger in maintaining the status quo: McCarthy v. Scheibler, 1999 CarswellOnt 3419 (Ont. S.C.J.) at para. 14. Variation of interim custody and access orders will usually only succeed if a child is at risk, or for some other compelling reasons. There is a presumption in favour of the status quo absent compelling reason to change the status quo: Gusikoski v. Gusikoski, 2001 CarswellSask 323 (Sask. Q.B.) at para. 10. In Green v. Cairns, 2004 CarswellOnt 2322 (Ont. S.C.J.) at para. 14, Wood J. referred to the well- founded reluctance by courts to vary interim orders on an interim basis and stated that an interim order should only be varied on an interim basis where the evidence establishes “clearly and unequivocally” that the present arrangement is not in a child’s best interests. In Greve v. Brighton, 2011 ONSC 4996 (CanLII), 2011 CarswellOnt 8814 (Ont. S.C.J.), Ricchetti J., after reviewing various authorities, states at para. 24 that on a motion for an interim order to vary an existing interim order, the court should only do so where the moving party has demonstrated a change in circumstances as a result of which there are compelling reasons to vary the interim order to meet the child’s best interests.
While Radojevic was decided under the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.) the same test applies under the CLRA. See: McIsaac v. Pye, 2011 ONCJ 816 CarswellOnt 15387.”