“This is an interim proceeding. The importance of that cannot be lost. An interim order should, as much as possible, stabilize the situation for the parties and the children so that the litigation can move forward to finally resolve the broader issues by conferencing, settlement or trial (F.B. v. C.H., 2021 ONCJ 275).
There is no doubt and it appears no dispute that the parties cannot continue to reside separate and apart under the same roof. In considering the request by the applicant for exclusive possession, I must consider the criteria enumerated in s. 24(3) of the FLRA. Most important to me are the factors mentioned in s. 24(3)(a), (c) and (e):
(a) the best interests of the children affected;
…
(c) the financial position of both spouses;
…
(e) the availability of other suitable and affordable accommodation;
As directed in Liao v. Liao, 2003 CanLII 2176 (ONSC) at para. 25: … “particularly in cases where the family’s financial position allows the temporary maintenance of two households, the children’s interests should outweigh the proprietary interest of the spouses in possession of the matrimonial home.”