“Our courts repeatedly have emphasized the challenging nature of making important parenting determinations on an urgent and interim basis, bearing in mind the potential for such “interim” decisions to assume, in practice and effect, more extended and lasting significance. In particular:
a. Frequently, the material filed by parties is hastily prepared, incomplete, and untested. Moreover, the facts are often still evolving.
b. Already elevated emotions are heightened by the fact that the parties are in a state of transition; e.g., with one or both parties relocating to new homes. Even without ongoing custody litigation, that would be stressful for all concerned, including children.
c. The obvious strategic dynamics associated with temporary motions cannot be ignored. Counsel frequently embark on arguments based on preservation of a “status quo” even before there is agreement on what the status quo might be, and even “interim interim” orders, intended to have only temporary effect, often have significant long-term implications. Being fair to the parties as litigants is important. However, being fair to the children is even more important.
d. In such a context, temporary orders are meant to provide a reasonably acceptable solution on an expeditious basis for a problem that will be more fully canvassed at subsequent stages in the process, and quite often at a trial.
e. To the extent it can be ascertained, the status quo ordinarily should be maintained until trial, unless there is material evidence that the children’s best interest demands an immediate change.
f. Courts must be mindful of, and actively discourage, efforts by parents to unilaterally create a new status quo through manipulation, exaggeration or deception.
g. Physical separation between parents usually entails some continuing geographic proximity, usually within the same community. Where travel time and arrangements are not a serious complicating factor, courts can determine timesharing and other parenting issues purely on the basis of “best interests” considerations, including maximizing contact between a child and both of his or her parents.
h. Frequency of contact is particularly important for young children, and where parents continue to reside in relatively close proximity to one another, courts have more options to ensure a sensitive and evolutionary approach to parenting issues.
For authority emphasizing the considerations set out in this particular paragraph, see in particular Coe v. Tope, 2014 ONSC 4002, at paragraph 25, and the numerous authorities cited therein.”