The Application arose from the separation of the Plaintiff and Defendant, and the child support obligations of the Defendant. The Parties had previously entered into an agreement regarding the amount of child support that was to be paid by the Defendant based on the information available at that time. The Plaintiff alleged that the information was incomplete or inaccurate and that additional support was warranted, and brought the Application seeking such a change. The Defendant took the position that the agreement was valid and ought to be enforced as written.

The Application was heard based solely on filed affidavit evidence and without any vive voce evidence. The intention of the Parties and the Court was that the resulting decision was to be the final determination of the dispute. The Court noted that case law indicated that a final order in a matter ought to be made following a trial, and that a final order is rarely to be made in chambers based solely on conflicting affidavits. It was further noted that granting a final order in such a situation was akin to summary judgment, which is a remedy not typically permitted in most family law matters pursuant to Rule 12.48.

After considering the Rules and the relevant case law, Justice Brookes held that it is the responsibility of the hearing judge to ensure the proper process is followed. The Court held that in the circumstances, it was appropriate to make a final determination on the validity and enforceability of the agreement between the parties and that doing so would not be contrary to Rule 12.48. The agreement was found to be enforceable according to its terms and no changes were directed regarding the payment of child support by the Defendant.