Month: April 2025

“Although the “status quo” is frequently mentioned as an important consideration in determining or continuing parenting arrangements – particularly at the interim stage — the term “status quo” is not specifically mentioned in the legislation. However, section 24(3)(d) of the CLRA lists “the history of care of the child” as a factor in determining best interests. That factor appears to be another way of describing “status quo”.  Brownson v. Brownson, 2022 ONSC 5882 (SCJ).

a.    It is a long-standing legal principle that absent evidence of a material change and that an immediate change is required, the status quo is ordinarily to be maintained until trial:  Niel v. Niel, 1976 CanLII 1925 (ON CA), 28 R.F.L. 257 (Ont. C.A.), Grant v. Turgeon, 2000 CanLII 22565 (ON SC), 5 R.F.L. (5th) 326 (Ont. S.C.J.); Wang v. Tang, 2023 ONSC 3609 (SCJ); Easton v. McAvoy, 2005 CarswellOnt 7379 (OCJ); Levesque v. Bond, 2023 ONSC 1895 (SCJ)

b.    The status quo – and avoiding reckless creation of a new status quo – are important considerations at the interim stage.  Cosentino v. Cosentino, 2016 ONSC 5621 (SCJ); Cabral v. Parker2021 ONSC 4574 (SCJ); Viveash v. Viveash 2021 ONSC 7456 (SCJ); N.D. v. R.K ., 2020 ONCJ 266 (OCJ).   The longer the status quo has existed, the greater the presumption that it should be maintained pending trial, unless there is material evidence that the child’s best interests require an immediate change.   W.H.C. v. W.C.M.C. 2021 ONCJ 308 (OCJ); Ceho v. Ceho, 2015 ONSC 5285 (SCJ); Batsinda v. Batsinda 2013 ONSC 7869 (SCJ); Green v. Cairns, 2004 CanLII 9301 (SCJ); Papp v. Papp, 1969 CanLII 219 (ON CA); MacDonald v. Cannell, 2021 ONSC 7769 (SCJ).

c.    Temporary orders are “band-aid” solutions pending a full hearing.  The status quo is ordinarily maintained pending trial unless the evidence demonstrates that the best interests of the child require some modification.  Sullivan v. Senechal, 2022 ONSC 557 (SCJ)

d.    To disturb the status quo, there must be compelling evidence to show the welfare of the child would be in danger if the status quo is maintained.  The evidence must clearly and unequivocally establish that the status quo is not in the child’s best interests. Miranda v. Miranda, 2013 ONSC 4704 (SCJ); Dayboll v. Binag, 2022 ONSC 6510 (SCJ); A.L. v. C.M.,2023 ONCJ 412 (OCJ); Tomkinson v. Baszak 2023 ONSC 4092 (SCJ).

e.    The status quo is particularly important on an interim motion because the court is often not in a position to make factual findings based on incomplete and untested evidence. R.C. v. L.C., 2021 ONSC 1963 (SCJ); C.C. v. I.C., 2021 ONSC 6471 (SCJ); Dayboll v. Binag, 2022 ONSC 6510 (SCJ); Chaput v. Chaput, 2021 ONSC 2809 (SCJ);”

Churchill v. Elliot and Ward, 2024 ONSC 1907 (CanLII) at 36

“On an initial application for child support pursuant to s. 15.1(1) of the Divorce Act, a court may make an order for the payment of child support for “any or all children of the marriage”. For children who are at the age of majority or older, s. 2(1) of the Divorce Act defines them as being a “child of the marriage” if they are “under [parental] charge but unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to withdraw from their charge or to obtain the necessaries of life”.

When a parent claims child support for a child who is at the age of majority or older, that parent has the onus of proving that the child remains under parental charge: Whitton v. Whitton (1989), 1989 CanLII 8868 (ON CA), 21 R.F.L. (3d) 261 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 263; Dring v. Gheyle, 2018 BCCA 435, 430 D.L.R. (4th) 181, at para. 49; Olson v. Olson, 2003 ABCA 56, 225 D.L.R. (4th) 735, at para. 13. This onus can be satisfied by identifying circumstances such as, for example, the child being enrolled in higher education: see W.P.N. v. B.J.N., 2005 BCCA 7, 249 D.L.R. (4th) 352, at para. 18.”

          Licata v. Shure, 2022 ONCA 270 (CanLII) at 32-33