Marc J. Coderre

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking primary residence of the parties’ two children, school changes, and enrollment of the son in a different hockey association.

The respondent father brought a cross‑motion seeking to maintain shared parenting arrangements, different school placements, and access orders consistent with a custody evaluation report.

The court found that both parents contributed to escalating conflict and that the mother had attempted to undermine the father’s relationship with the son, including encouraging school and extracurricular changes aligned with her new residence and partner.

Relying heavily on the custody evaluation report, the court maintained shared parenting for the daughter, ordered counselling to address the damaged father‑son relationship, and rejected the requested relocation of the son’s school and hockey program.

Multiple interim parenting directions were imposed, including restrictions on parental communications and prohibitions on criticizing the other parent in the children’s presence.

On an interim custody motion following separation, the father sought shared parenting while the mother sought to maintain the existing arrangement that limited the father’s parenting time.

The court considered the principle that interim orders should generally preserve the true status quo unless the child’s best interests require otherwise.

The judge found the relevant status quo was the parenting arrangement prior to the father being required to leave the matrimonial home, where both parents had significant involvement in caregiving.

Given the conflicting affidavit evidence and both parents’ demonstrated commitment to the child, the court ordered an interim shared parenting regime with alternating weeks.

The court also ordered that the child’s daycare not be changed pending further order and that daycare costs be shared equally.