“The suitability of a joint custody order depends on there being “some evidence before the court that, despite their differences, the parties are able to communicate effectively with one another”. That evidence may exist notwithstanding one parent’s professed inability to communicate with the other. Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, 2005 CanLII 1625 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. No. 275 (C.A.), at paragraph 11.
A Court may find that the parents could and had communicated effectively and put the interests of the children ahead of their own even where the relationship between the parents was, at times, conflictual and with strife. Ladisa v. Ladisa, 2005 CanLII 1627 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. No. 276 (C.A.), at paragraph 16.
Faced with a situation, as here, with a status quo argument being made by one parent, it is not enough for the Court to simply acquiesce to what has been in place as a Temporary Order. Even if the Court finds that the status quo would be just fine for the children, the Court should go on to consider whether a shared parenting arrangement would be in the best interests of the children. Lo v. Mang, [2011] O.J. No. 390 (S.C.J.), at paragraph 96.
To help us assess what is in the best interests of the children, we look to the factors listed under subsection 24(2) of the Children’s Law Reform Act (“CLRA”).”