What is the current state of the relationship of the children between the father and mother?

The question remains as to what order should be made at this point in time. Here I must address the first principle, namely that absent compelling reasons the status quo should be maintained until trial. One difficulty here is in describing a status quo. The mother argues that a status quo has developed since 1998 that favours her. I do not agree. In 1998, the children were with her while the father was overseas and were with him, largely, while he was in Canada. This gave some preponderance of time to the mother. In 1999, it may be that this arrangement was to continue. Plans may have gone awry, and litigation was commenced, resulting in the October 12th order and this motion. Given this record, and the factual controversy as to when the children were with each parent, it is difficult to identify a status quo that should continue until trial. In these circumstances, I find the direction of Zuber J.A. in Sypher v. Sypher (1986), 2 R.F.L. (3d) 413 (Ont. C.A.) particularly useful where he states, at p. 414: …the purpose of the interim order is simply to provide a reasonably acceptable solution to a difficult problem until trial.