“In Plumley v. Plumley, 1999 CanLII 13990, 1999 CarswellOnt. 3503 (S.C.) the court discussed factors relating to interim mobility at para. 7:
It appears to me that the following factors are or ought to be important in deciding the mobility issue on an interim basis:
1. A court will be more reluctant to upset the status quo on an interim basis and permit the move when there is a genuine issue for trial.
2. There can be compelling circumstances which might dictate that a judge ought to allow the move. For example, the move may result in a financial benefit to the family unit, which will be lost if the matter awaits a trial or the best interests of the children might dictate that they commence school at a new location.
3. Although there may be a genuine issue for trial, the move may be permitted on an interim basis if there is a strong probability that the custodial parent’s position will prevail at a trial.
Dealing with interim mobility in this case can be analogized to the interim custody case of Currie v. Maudsley, 2011 ONSC 4214 (CanLII). There, on the issue of status quo, the court stated at paras. 15-17:
The law is well settled that on a motion for interim custody, the status quo of the children should not be disturbed in the absence of compelling reasons where a change in custody is necessary to meet the children’s best interests and this would include a situation where there is evidence that maintaining an existing status quo will be harmful to the children.
In Grant v. Turgeon, 2000 CanLII 22565 (ON SC), [2000] O.J. No. 970, V. Mackinnon J. stated that the “status quo will be maintained on an interim custody motion in the absence of compelling reasons indicative of the necessity of a change to meet the children’s best interests. That is so whether the existing arrangement is de facto or de jure (see para. 15).
Some of the reasons why the interim status quo should be preserved were succinctly stated by J. Wright J. in Kimpton v. Kimpton, [2002] O.J. No. 5367 as follows in paras. 1 and 2:
There is a golden rule which implacably governs motions for interim custody: stability is a primary need for children caught in the throes of matrimonial dispute and the de facto custody of children ought not to be disturbed pendente lite, unless there is some compelling reason why in the interests of the children, the parent having de facto custody should be deprived thereof. On this consideration hangs all other considerations. On motions for interim custody the most important factor in considering the best interests of the child has traditionally been the maintenance of the legal status quo. … By status quo is meant the primary or legal status quo, not a short lived status quo created to gain tactical advantage. [Emphasis in original. Citations omitted].
Unless the courts insist that they will not disturb the existing arrangements for children on interim motions except in those cases where it is clear that the children are being exposed to danger or there is some other compelling reason, the courts will continue to be confronted with litigants demanding that the court embark upon the impossible task of attempting to assess the relative merits of parties who have filed numerous affidavits contradicting the affidavits of the other.”
Hutchings-Valentim v. Valentim, 2018 ONSC 7110 (CanLII) at 20-21