The parties were involved in a high conflict family matter. The parties sought the determination of eight issues at a Case Management Hearing, including issues related to the childrens’ care and control and division of time, child support, tax credits, allegations of contempt, and a determination of how previous Costs Orders were to be paid. There were two outstanding Costs Orders against the Defendant which had not been paid. The Defendant argued that the Costs Orders were unwarranted, and that he could not afford to pay them. Mahoney J. noted that the Defendant had not appealed the Cost Orders, and stated that the Court could not review or vary the Costs Orders. Given the highly contentious dispute between the parties, Mahoney J., exercising the Court’s broad authority under Rule 4.14, directed that the two Costs Awards be payable by the Defendant to the Maintenance Enforcement Program as child support, as opposed to directly to the Plaintiff.

Justice Mahoney determined each Application, with mixed results for the parties, and directed that the Court’s Case Management Counsel prepare the Orders flowing from the Case Management Hearing for Mahoney J.’s review and endorsement. Mahoney J. invoked Rule 9.4(2)(c), which provides that approval of the Order is not required by either of the parties.