The father brought a motion to change the primary residence of the parties' teenage son and to obtain specified access pending trial.
The mother opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to modify the father's access and require family counselling before access resumed.
The court dismissed both motions, finding that the long-standing status quo of the child residing primarily with the mother should be maintained pending trial.
The court held that there were no compelling reasons to disturb the status quo, particularly given the untested nature of competing expert reports on parental alienation and the proximity of trial.
