The applicant wife brought a motion for interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, interim custody, and child and spousal support.
The respondent husband brought a cross-motion for similar relief but ultimately argued for the status quo, as the parties had been living separate and apart under the same roof for over a year.
The court applied section 24 of the Family Law Act and found that the best interests of the children were being met by the status quo, as there was little evidence of conflict affecting them.
Both the motion and cross-motion for exclusive possession were dismissed, rendering interim custody and support orders unnecessary.
