Z. Pre-Trials

• Author: Julien D. Payne - Marilyn A. Payne
• Pages: 564-564

564 CHILD SU PPORT GUIDELINES IN CA NADA, 2012

X. COMPUTER PROGRAMS

Computer programs used to facilitate calculation of support under the Federal Child Sup-

port Guidelines are not infallible. ey are only as reliable as the reliability of the assump-

tions used in the par ticular program.196 Currently available computer software designed to

assist in the calculation of child support under the guidelines is based in part on certain

assumptions that the designers have been required to make in the absence of judicial in-

terpretation of the governing legislation and of the guidelines. ese assumptions must be

amended on an ongoing basis to ref‌lect developing judicial interpretation in order to ensure

that the sof tware remains rel iable.197

Y. PLEA OF UNDUE HARDSHIP

Parties who seek special or extraordinary expenses under section 7 of the Federal Child

Support Guidelines or who claim undue hardship within the meaning of section 10 of the

Guidelines must do so by a formal notice in writing and not orally from the f‌loor of the

court when the motion is being argued.198

A respondent may raise a plea of undue hardship under section 10 of the Federal Child

Support Guidelines in response to a claim for child support without f‌iling an independent

application by way of a notice of motion specif‌ically seeking such relief. Section 10 will be

properly before the court if, in response to an original application for child support or an

application to vary an exi sting order, the respondent informs the applicant in writing of h is

intention to invoke the section.199

Reasonable notice must be given if a party seeks to invoke the undue hardship provi-

sions of section 10 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines. At the very least , counsel should

identify the grounds upon which t he claim wil l be advanced and complete and submit cal-

culations based on f‌ina ncial disclosure by a ll members of each household.200

Z. PRE-TRIALS

A court may entertain a motion for a pre-trial determi nation of a question of law raised by

the pleadings where such a determination may substantially reduce costs. No evidence is

admissible on such a motion in Ontario, except by leave of the court or on consent of the

parties.201 Evidence of communications during the course of a pre-trial conference is in-

admissible in Saskatchewan pursua nt to Rule 191(15) of the Queen’s Bench Rules.202

196 Kelly v. Ke lly, [1998] A.J. No. 228 (Q.B.).

197 Kelly v. Ke lly, [1998] A.J. No. 423 (Q.B.).

198 omson v. Howard, [1997] O.J. No. 4431 (Gen. Div.).

199 Brady v. Bra dy, [1998] B.C.J. No.702 (S.C.).

200 B.L.M.G. v. D.J.E.G., [1998] M.J. No. 278 (Q.B.).

201 Laczko v. Laczko, [1999] O.J. No. 2577 (S.C.J.).

202 Foster v. Amos, 2010 SKQB 409.