FJN v JK, 2018 ABQB 641

Moen J

9.13: Re-opening case

Case Summary

The Reasons of Justice Moen initially arose from a family law Trial conducted in 2018 primarily dealing with the issue of child support (the “Initial Reasons”). Moen J. issued a Corrigendum with respect to some of the issues within the Initial Reasons, claiming them to be “unclear and contradictory”. Justice Moen chose to provide supplementary reasons, particularly in regards to the issues of guardianship and ongoing reporting requirements, noting that these issues required a more fulsome explanation (the “Supplementary Reasons”).

Justice Moen noted that Rule 9.13(a) allows for a Justice, before a judgment or order is entered, to vary the judgment or order. Citing Justice Shelley in Paniccia Estate v Toal, 2012 ABQB 11 (CanLII), Moen J. outlined the potential benefits of judicial intervention after the reasons have been issued but before the Judgment Roll has been filed. Such benefits include, inter alia: (1) an otherwise unnecessary and costly appeal may be averted; (2) if a party does conclude that an appeal is warranted, then the appellate Court has the benefit of a more fully developed consideration of the facts and law; and (3) an incorrect statement of law can be corrected that might otherwise confuse future judicial analysis and inappropriately bind lower Courts.

In this instance, Her Ladyship had not addressed the ongoing reporting requirements in the Initial Reasons and found that such reporting requirements are essential to any order of the Court with respect to child support. Justice Moen concluded by: correcting the Initial Reasons to account for minor discrepancies and errors; more fulsomely addressing the issue of guardianship; and giving direction for the annual reporting of income.

View CanLII Details