DD. Judicial Notice

• Author: Julien D. Payne - Marilyn A. Payne
• Pages: 566-566

566 CHILD SU PPORT GUIDELINES IN CA NADA, 2012

ery process on the basis of incomplete information. Expert opinions at the interim stage

may backf‌ire by causing the part ies to become entrenched in their disparate positions. ey

run the risk of causing delay and excessive costs because one expert opinion may trigger

another opinion on behalf of the other party. Expert evidence of a historical nature may

also be of little or no relevance at the interim stage, where the court must assess the par-

ent’s expected income over the next six months or so. Although there may be cases where

an expert’s opinion would be helpful on an interim motion, coun sel should be conscious of

the limits of such evidence and cogni zant of the potential objection to such evidence being

received.209

DD. JUDICIAL NOTICE

A court is not entitled to invoke the doctrine of judicial notice to refute the documented

and uncontradicted evidence of a self-employed parent as to her earning capacity in a par-

ticula r f‌ield of employment.210

EE. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESSES

e mediation process before a Dispute Resolution Of‌f‌icer in Alberta is privileged. e

problem of having privileged information available on the court f‌ile can be addressed by

a parent resubmitting f‌inancial information to the court in the form of an appendix to an

af‌f‌idavit. Systemic solutions to the problem might be achieved by legislative removal of the

privilege or by a f‌iling direction that segregates materials f‌iled for the mediation process

from the lit igation f‌ile.211

An Alberta court may order the annual production of personal and corporate income

tax returns to forestall future problems in determining the amount of child support to be

paid, but it cannot order binding JDR (judicial dispute resolution) as part of the “formula”

for dealing with future problems. Court-ordered mandatory attendance at binding JDR is

inappropriate because it requires the parties to give up important substantive rights. Suf-

f‌icient agreement may, nevertheless, exist between the parents about the underlying facts

in dispute to allow a judge to express an opinion about the facts without ordering the trial

of an issue. In that event, a special chambers application could be brought or a summary

trial heard, neither of which requires a litigant to give up any substantive rights relating to

appeal or rev iew.212

On an application seeking a partial remission of child support arrears, a court has no

jurisdiction to accept a father’s proposal with respect to the payment of specif‌ied arrears

where that proposal is rejected by the mother. In open court and chambers, the court’s

role is adjudicative; it determines the legal rights and obligations of litigants. In that role,

it cannot impose a proposed settlement on either parent. Absent agreement between the

parents on the facts that must support an application for cancellation of arrears, the court

must order a trial of the issue where evidence wil l determine what facts the court will f‌ind.

209 Picard v. Picard, [2001] O.J. No. 2299 (S.C.J.).

210 Dean v. Brown, [2002] N.S.J. No. 439 (C.A.).

211 Harrison v. Hardy, [2005] A.J. No. 1189 (Q.B.).

212 Yeoman v. Luhtala, [2002] A.J. No. 1504 (Q.B.).