The Court considered correspondence from counsel to settle the terms of an Order following Judgment on child support. The Defendant raised concerns about the calculation of his income, arguing that his employment income was double-counted for 2022 and 2023 and that his actual income for 2023 was lower than the $114,000 estimate submitted by his counsel.

Justice Teskey emphasized that the purpose of a written Order is to formalize the Judgment as pronounced, not to introduce new evidence or revisit the Decision. The Court confirmed that any alleged errors should be addressed through an Appeal, variation Application, or Trial, rather than through the settlement process.

In addressing the timeliness of filing the Order, the Court applied Rule 9.2(2), which sets clear deadlines for drafting, serving, and approving an Order within 10 days of pronouncement. Justice Teskey noted that the process in this case had significantly exceeded those timelines. Further, Rule 9.5(2) states that an Order cannot be entered more than three months after it is pronounced without the Court’s permission, which requires a formal Application on notice. The Court referenced Henderson Estate (Re), 2024 ABCA 141, affirming that these Rules are intended to prevent unnecessary delay and to ensure finality in litigation.

Given that more than three months had passed, the Court held that permission for late entry could not be granted without a proper Application supported by evidence. The Court reviewed the key considerations, including whether the delay resulted from laches, whether granting permission would serve the interests of justice, and whether procedural or costs consequences were warranted. The Plaintiff was directed to file an Affidavit addressing these factors, with the Defendant given 14 days to respond. A hearing was scheduled to determine whether the late filing should be permitted.