“In Arbitman v. Lee, 2021 ONSC 315, the applicant father brought an urgent motion for seeking a 2-2-3 equal schedule on a temporary, without prejudice basis for the children, and for equal decision-making authority. The respondent mother opposed and sought orders for primary residence, and limited parenting time for the father. Ultimately, Monahan J. ordered a 2-2-3 parenting schedule upon making the following findings:
(a) it is in the interests of the children that parenting arrangements going forward provide them with the opportunity to maintain their close and loving relationships with both of their parents.
(b) It is in the interests of the children that parenting arrangements should be designed to ensure that they are not exposed to any further conflict between their parents.
(c) The children’s lives have been significantly disrupted by the events of the last few months. This disruption has caused confusion and distress for the children. It is in their best interests to establish arrangements which are stable and predictable and which, over time, will reduce the anxiety they are currently experiencing.
In Phillips v. Phillips, 2021 ONSC 2480, the applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking an order for a rotating 2-2-3 equal parenting schedule. The motion was brought because of the respondent mother’s unilateral move with the child from the matrimonial home in the Town of Erin to Toronto. The father maintained that he had always been a fully involved parent who often cared for the child while the parties lived together. The mother disagreed with those representations, maintaining she had always been the child’s primary caregiver, while the father continued to work. Kurz J. ultimately ordered a 2-2-3 parenting schedule and found it was in the child’s best interests to have her parents share in her upbringing.
In Pereira v. Ramos, the applicant father brought a motion requesting an order to increase his parenting time with the parties three (3) children in accordance with a 2-2-3 parenting schedule, or a week- about schedule. The respondent mother opposed the father’s motion and requested that the parties continue to follow the current schedule where the children reside primarily with her and visit their father on alternating weekends. The father maintained that he was an active parent throughout the duration of the marriage and the mother disagreed. Jain J. held found that it was in the best interests of the children to spend as much time with each parent as possible. She therefore found a shared parenting time regime was applicable, and accordingly ordered a week-about schedule for that parenting time.
In the above cases, the court ordered schedules that promote a shared parenting regime and as much time as possible with each parent. As well, the court ordered schedules that altered the status quo that was arbitrarily imposed by one of the parties, against the wishes of the other party. Most importantly, the court recognized the importance of preserving and fostering a relationship with both parents, especially when the children are young, and considered the 2-2-3 parenting schedule was a good way to meet those goals.”
Mummery v. Craiu-Botan, 2021 ONSC 4702 (CanLII) at 72-73, 75-76