Does a motion judge erred in principle in failing to maintain the status quo?

Counsel for the applicant mother submits that the motion judge erred in principle in failing to maintain the status quo, which he submitted was the implacable and invariable rule in these cases. He referred me to several cases, including Kimpton v. Kimpton[1] in which it was said that “stability is a primary need for children caught in the throes of matrimonial dispute and the de facto custody of children ought not to be disturbed pendente lite, unless there is some compelling reason why, in the interests of the children, the parent having de facto custody should be deprived thereof.” He submitted that these cases conflicted with the present case and the principles on which they were decided ought to have governed the motion judge.