[14] Cranston-Aube v. Stubbington, supra, was a case in which the respondent did nothing after being served, just like the respondent in the present case. That case involved a claim by a mother for child support, unlike the present that involves a claim by a payor father to vary a child support order. In both these cases, the first two pre-requisites are met. It is the third that is in question. Can the issues be adequately determined by proceeding with the provisional-confirmation scheme set out in section 44 of the Family Law Act?
[15] There were several factors that apply to this third prerequisite, which is an opinion of the court in the circumstances. These were also of some import in Cranston-Aube v. Stubbington, supra.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.