The status quo – and avoiding reckless creation of a new status quo – are important considerations at the interim custody stage: Cosentino v. Cosentino, 2016 ONSC 5621 (CanLII) at paras. 16 and 17.
It is a long standing legal principle that absent evidence of a material change and that an immediate change is required, the status quo is ordinarily to be maintained until trial: Niel v. Niel, 1976 CanLII 1925 (ON CA), 28 R.F.L. 257 (Ont. C.A.), Grant v. Turgeon, 2000 CanLII 22565 (ON SC), 5 R.F.L. (5th) 326 (Ont. S.C.J.); Kimpton v. Kimpton, 2002 CarswellOnt 5030 (Ont. S.C.J.); Easton v. McAvoy, 2005 CarswellOnt 7379 (Ont. C.J.) ; M.W. v. E.B. and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2005 CanLII 18315 (Ont. S.C.); and Horton v. Marsh, 2008 CarswellNS 371 (N.S. S.C.).
In making an interim order, a court should generally maintain the status quo in the absence of important reasons suggesting that change is necessary in the child’s best interests: McEachern v. McEachern (1994) 1994 CanLII 7379 (ON CTGD), 5 RFL (4th) 115.
To disturb the status quo, there must be compelling evidence to show the welfare of the child would be in danger in maintaining the status quo, namely the evidence must clearly and unequivocally establish that the status quo is not in the child’s best interests: Miranda v. Miranda, 2013 ONSC 4704 (CanLII), para. 26.
It is generally not in the best interests of the child to disturb a status quo on a temporary basis pending trial without compelling reasons. Those compelling reasons usually include an assessment report from a private assessor or the OCL recommending an immediate change in residence.”