Moore v. Moore, 2023 NSSC 285

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: Moore v. Moore , 2023 NSSC 285 Date: 20230907 Docket: SFH-PSA 115211 Registry: Halifax Between: Shawn Moore Applicant v. Angela Moore Respondent LIBRARY HEADING Judge: The Honourable Justice Elizabeth Jollimore Heard: August 29, 2023

Summary: Mother asked to have father’s request for determination of decision- making responsibility dismissed for mootness. Mother successful where child was almost 18, living apart from both parents and had the financial and intellectual wherewithal to make his own decisions. [ 1 ] Key words: Family, Decision-making Responsibility, Mootness [ 2 ] Legislation: P arenting and Support Act , RSNS 1989, c. 160 THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOESN’T FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET . SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: Moore v.

Moore , 2023 NSSC 285 Date: 20230907 Docket: SFH-PSA 115211 Registry: Halifax Between: Shawn Moore Applicant

v. Angela Moore Respondent Judge: The Honourable Justice Elizabeth Jollimore Heard: August 29, 2023 Counsel: Nicholas Darbyshire for Angela MooreShawn Moore, self-represented By the Court: Introduction [1] In mid-2019, Shawn Moore filed an application for custody and parenting time under the Parenting and Support Act, R.S.N.S.1989, c. 160. Ms. Moore responded, asking for child support. Almost all their claims were resolved at a settlement conference 17months ago: they couldn’t agree on decision-making responsibility for their son. No hearing date has been scheduled to address thisissue. [2] Ms.

Moore now asks me to dismiss Mr. Moore’s claim for decision-making because it’s moot. [3] Mr. Moore opposes the finding of mootness, saying that the son will look to Ms. Moore for input when he must make decisions. Mr. Moore has significant concerns about Ms. Moore’s “mental health and her capacity to adequately make decisions” about their son’slife. Ms. Moore has the same concerns about Mr.

Moore. [4] The parents’ mental health and capacity are relevant only if I decide that the issue is not moot, and a judge should decide who willhave decision-making responsibility for their son. [5] When a judge’s decision about an issue has no practical effect on the parties’ rights, the issue is “moot”. Dismissing claims whichare moot ensures that the limited and costly public resources of judicial time and courtrooms are used to secure fair, fast and cost-effective justice in disputes whose outcomes will have a practical effect on parties’ rights. [6] There are 2 steps in deciding whether Mr.

Moore’s claim should be heard: Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) (SCC) at para 16. The first step is determining if the dispute has “disappeared and the issues have become academic”. If so, I mustdecide if the case should be heard for some other reason. Judges have the discretion to hear a case that would otherwise have no impacton the parties. Has the issue of decision-making disappeared or become academic? [7] I accept Ms. Moore’s argument that the issue of decision-making has become academic. [8] The couple’s son will turn 18 within the next 6 weeks.

He is in his first year of university in a province where neither parent lives,living on campus. Because of his academic and extra-curricular achievements, his education is fully funded by an extremely generousscholarship that makes him financially independent. [9] Ms. Moore described her son as “mature”. Mr. Moore said, “he’s his own man”. Each parent acknowledges that, effectively, theirson makes his own decisions even now. [10] Both in Nova Scotia and in the province where their son currently lives, the age of majority is 19.

However, in a few weeks whenhe is 18, their son will be competent to make most of his own decisions. He will be able to vote, to enlist in the Armed Forces, to get atattoo or body piercing, he will be able to run for Parliament or the legislature. He has already made significant decisions about hiseducation and where he will live. Practically, decisions about where he will live, his medical treatments, and his religious and politicalviews cannot be made by anyone but him. [11] The Moores’ son is not a typical 17-year-old.

His maturity and his circumstances mean that any resolution to a dispute aboutdecision-making for him will have no practical effect on him or on his parents. Is there reason to decide the case, even though it is moot? [12] Because I’ve decided resolving the question of who will make decisions for the Moores’ son will have no practical effect on eitherparent or their son, I must now consider whether there’s some other reason to hear the case.

[ 13 ] Possible reasons to hear Mr. Moore’s claim include: a. determining the validity of statutory or regulatory provisions involved in the litigation b. resolving the interest of intervenors in the litigation; or c. addressing an issue of public importance [ 14 ] Neither party identified any other reason to hear Mr. Moore’s claim and neither party offered evidence to show that there was some other reason to decide Mr. Moore’s claim. [ 15 ] I find there is no reason to exercise my discretion. Conclusion [ 16 ] Mr. Moore’s claim is moot and there is no reason to hear it.

I enclose an order dismissing his claim. ____________________________ Elizabeth Jollimore, J.S.C.(F.D.) Halifax, Nova Scotia