Family Responsibility Office blunders and garnishes wrong father for child support!

In yet another bizarre family dispute Kenny was forced to pay child support by the Family Responsibility Office for a child he didn’t know, according to Ottawa Divorce forum!

 

If I didn’t have bad luck, I would have no luck at all!The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) garnished the wrong person! I just can’t believe it.There was no child support order in effect of any type. I have had sole custody of the kids since summer 2009 (Winter 2005 for one). Ex has refused to pay child support in any amount or even send a birthday card with $5 in it for the kids.The court granted a Temporary Child Support Order until the trial in November 2011 where “The Respondent, Rita ***** will pay the Applicant child support in the amount of ….. (and so on)”I opened up the FRO mail the other day, apparently now, I am the payer! I am in the Canadian Forces, therefore the garnishment is easy. It will be effective on my end month April pay. WOW.I am sure this can be addressed. I have an original order to the contrary. The point is, FRO refuses to change the payment order or even investigate the mistake. I have to do all the leg work. In the meantime, my Ex is about to receive $1,800 that she is not entitled to, and will likely refuse to pay back.I am not only (court recognized) as $5,300 overpaid in child support from 2005, but the Ex owes me child support since 2009 AND will have money that does not belong to her. WTF!What a system!

They did a story or three not that long ago about the horrors of dealing with them…you need to call Ctv or some other news station…this needs to be out to the public..not swept under the carpet…

 click here to go to Ottawa Divorce forum to see Kenny’s story and responses…

Kenny ought to have served and filed an emergency motion with a supporting affidavit and exhibits (serve it on his former, and FRO, (it is also called a 14B motion for uncomplicated matters) that the Family Responsibility Office garnished the wrong account and wrong person. This process short circuits the alternative long process which requires a Motion to Change  (form 15C Motion-it takes a long time to process and requires a Case Conference and if not settled that leads to a Settlement Conference, then to a Pre-Trial Conference to Trial).

The second process may take 1 year or longer to get adjudicated that is why if there is urgency in the matter bring a  14B motion. The relief sought in the Notice of Motion ought to clearly set out.  Specify the repayment of any monies which they have garnished, forthwith (don’t forget to ask for cost costs which caused you to spend your time and money because FRO didn’t respond to your letters and that money is recoverable in a motion but you must ask for it. This relief must be written in as part of the relief you are seeking).

Always write a letter to FRO and send it by fax or registered letter so that you have proof that they received it (for court purposes). Assuming FRO is adamant about granting you the relief you are seeking then follow it up with a motion. It is usually at this point that FRO may back down however, they sometimes think they are invisible but they to get hammered by judges for wasting much of the court’s valuable time. It is very surprising how insensitive FRO is to the many family cases which are registered with them through SDO or domestic contract route. FRO professes to serve the public and thousands of cases each year but at what expense and what draconian methods do they deploy is very questionable. Do they really serve the public or do they serve themselves because of the insensitivity and logic many cases simply wouldn’t even go to court however, it is possible that they need to fuel the lawyers incomes forcing matters to court unnecessarily and at taxpayers expense. When in court the parties usually come to a resolution before judge or court hearing. if you win you are entitled to recover your court costs (and if FRO caused harm to Kenney then he may sue them in small claims court for damages or another cause of action).

What is not clear is why the family court administration did not  properly fill out a form that delineate the payor and the recipient.  There is usually NO way for any mistakes unless either Family Court or FRO administration did something VERY wrong while filling in the standard family court forms. Sometimes the judge makes a mistake and orders the Respondent to make child support payments as opposed to in this case his former wife Rita however a Notice of Motion that is short served can get this repaired or amended  quickly. Kenny ought to read the court order thoroughly to ensure that everything is correct and compare it to the hand written endorsement to determine why his name appears on someone else’s support  order for child support payment. If it is substantially different than he ought to bring a motion to change the error/s.

If there is an overpayment and assuming that the court order was issued and entered with a Support Deduction Order “SDO”  in Kenny’s favour, then he is entitled to get all of the overpayment back. The SDO is automatically filed with FRO to garnish her wages (up to 50% of her wages) and seize all of her income tax returns, GST credits until all money is returned. If there is no SDO and Rita is not willing to pay the outstanding money/over-payment back or if she is unemployed or on welfare there may be some problems getting repaid.

Family Responsibility Office Enforcement Options

Family Responsibility Office Enforcement actions which they may take include:

 

  • garnishing your bank accounts
  • garnishing money you may be entitled to receive from the Government of Canada (for example, income tax refunds, employment insurance benefits, Canada Pension Plan benefits, and Old Age Security benefits)
  • reporting you to the credit bureau
  • suspending your driver’s licence
  • suspending your Canadian passport or other federal licences (including a pilot’s licence, as well as maritime and navigational licences and certificates)
  • placing a lien on your personal property
  • issuing a writ of seizure and sale for property you own
  • reporting you to your professional or occupational organization(s)
  • seizing your lottery winnings, and
  • starting a Default Hearing, which could result in up to 180 days of jail time.

Garnishment Options 50% for support 20% for court costs orders

 

Assuming there is no SDO, then a garnishment has to  be filled out with the court in her jurisdiction and then the garnishment has to be served  on a director or owner (or a person with proper authority) at her place of employment. The employer is then required by law to garnish her wages and Kenny would be entitled to get 50% of her wages until the child support over-payment or debt is paid.  You can get up to 20% wages garnishment lets say for an outstanding court cost order is paid back in full.

Support Order and Court Cost Orders are different

 

The support order and cost orders are different orders while FRO will enforce a support order they will not od so for court cost order unless ordered by the court. and one isif there is an SDO then FRO ought to garnish her federal taxes, otherwise obtain a garnishment were she works or against her bank accounts and collect the money.  Collections of outstanding support is sometimes easier said than done however, all the filing fees, parking and time can be added over and above the original amount in the  judgement or court order.

click here for Wages Act, Ontario 

 

Exemption from seizure or garnishment


2)  Subject to subsection (3), 80 per cent of a person’s wages are exempt from seizure or garnishment. R.S.O. 1990, c. W.1, s. 7 (2).

Idem, support or maintenance

(3)  Fifty per cent of a person’s wages are exempt from seizure or garnishment in the enforcement of an order for support or maintenance enforceable in Ontario. R.S.O. 1990, c. W.1, s. 7 (3)

 

 

Read more about Orser v. Grant case... another bizarre family case where FRO acts without compassion and understanding.ARRESTS the father after his father passing away .. this case involved three family courts (Ottawa, Toronto and Milton) and much of Ontario Tax dollars wasted for what appears to be mom get even attitude! 

This is test

Comments: Leave a Comment

Family Responsibility Office in Ontario


Family Responsibility Office may obtain a warrant for your arrest!

 

The Family Responsibility Office may obtain a warrant for your arrest and throw you in jail, if you refuse, or choose not to pay ongoing child support and/or owe child support pursuant to a court order in Ontario?  What measures does a Reciprocating Signatory Enforcing Countries have to enforce a child support order?

A behind the scene look at what really happened in Orser vs. Grant family court case when the Family Responsibility Office, existing legislation, the courts, Ms. Ester Lenkinski (lawyer for Ms. Orser)  and  the judges failed to consider the best interests of the children and why our Ontario tax dollars are being squandered needlessly (case continues from 1996 to present date).

 

Ms. Orser Alleged Child Support arrears 

 

In Orser vs. Grant (Barbara Jayne Orser v. Andris Peter Grant), Ms. Orser made allegations (February 9, 1996, Justice Spence made an interim order that Mr. Grant pay child support of $930.00 per month for the two children, Court File No. 94-ND-20850, in addition another court order was released April 25, 2000) [summarized 96 A.C.W.S. (3d) 644], Benotto J.) that the father owed many thousands of dollars in accrued child support payments stemming from an order that was made previously by the Hon. Justice Benotto.

 

Father’s arrest and incarceration at the Toronto International Airport

 

Ms. Orser contributed to the father’s arrest and incarceration at the Toronto International Airport when he arrived back to visit his children from Europe around 2002/2003. His trip to Europe was in part to deal with his father illness, which eventually led to his passing away.

 

Ms. Orser had a choice as to whether to enforce the existing order or simply withdraw from Family Responsibility Office enforcement program. In fact there were many options available to resolve the dispute between the two parents. Ms. Orser is believed to have taken a “get even attitude” towards the father and all the while used legal bullying court tactics to obtain what is called an unwarranted and an improper court order /s to financially impoverish the father.  It is our belief that the father’s evidence disclosed that each of the children had earned about $45,000 in yearly incomes. This evidence was kept out of court on purpose and to which Ms. Orser was legally obliged to disclose as it significantly  impacts  how much the father ought to be paying in child support. This information was crucial and would have affected the original court order in 1996.  In this case the incomes were very significant compared to Mr. Grant’s imputed income and what he was subsequently required  to pay in child support. In most cases the judges would have offset the child support against what the father would owe according the table amounts by some percentage. One must keep in mind that the children earned more than the father was required to pay  annually in support payments.

 

Learn how the Court, Judges and Family Responsibility Office and lawyers mistreated Mr. Grant, learn more about the Palonek case More details about this case …….

 


 

Comments: Leave a Comment