“The status quo will be maintained on an interim parenting motion in the absence of compelling reasons indicative of the necessity of a change to meet the best interests of the child. This is so whether the existing arrangement is de facto or de jure: Grant v. Turgeon (2000) 2000 CanLII 22565 (ON SC), 5 R.F.L. (5th) 326 (Ont.S.C.) at para. 15.
In Coe at para. 25, Justice Pazaratz summarized the principles to be considered when deciding parenting issues on an interim basis. The factors relevant to this proceeding are as follows:
b. …the obvious strategic dynamics associated with temporary motions cannot be ignored. Already, counsel are arguing “status quo” even before they can agree on what the status quoconsists of. Temporary and even temporary-temporary orders often have long-term implications. Being fair to the parties as litigants is important. Being fair to the children is even more important.
d. 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 – quite often at a trial;
e. The status quoshould ordinarily 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 quothrough manipulation, exaggeration or deception.
(citations omitted).
In Batsinda v Batsinda, Justice Chappel stated that the status quo that is relevant is that which existed just prior to the parties’ separation, except in circumstances where there is clear and unequivocal evidence that the parties agreed to a different decision-making and residence arrangement following the separation. A status quo created by one party unilaterally taking matters into their own hands, without any consent from the other party, does not fall within these principles: 2013 ONSC 7869 at pp 19-2.”