I am not comfortable engaging in speculation on the questions raised above. Given the evidence which would assist me in responding to a claim for a retroactive contribution to child care costs is lacking, I decline to exercise my jurisdiction to make such an award. This is consistent with the approach taken in Cooke v. Cooke 2012, NSSC 73 (paragraph 91). The Respondent now has a sizeable obligation to meet in repaying the retroactive child support, which had it been paid in 2010 or 2011 may well have better positioned the Applicant in relation to child-related expenses such as child care. It would be unwise to potentially compromise the capacity of the Respondent to pay arrears of child support by permitting an additional retroactive discretionary award. This is not to suggest that a contribution to child care by the Respondent would necessarily be inappropriate at some future point, particularly given clauses 42 and 43 of the Minutes remain in effect and do not discount the potential for a future contribution to child care and/or extracurricular activities. Conclusion
"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.alexsei.com.