Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Duty of Care....by a Government

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Duty of Care....by a Government

    I want to ask all here to share thier thoughts to my questions.

    Do you think the government has a level of care to to it's citizens as a whole, and to an individual? Also the same for each of its agencies?

    Now do you think that that level of due dilligence and or duty of care is limited to one party in an individual contract... the court writes the contract, an order. FRO administers that contract, and the parties to the contract are the recipiant and the payor. FRO by thier Act is not a party to any preceedings... then how can they be stating "on behalf of so and so recipient. Has anyone ever seen where FRO was "on behalf of the payor"

    Do you think FRO/Director there fore should have the same duty of care to each party.
    If they say they dont/cant then why are they so baiased to a recipiant.
    To me both should be treated equally. Please share your thoughts as I will be carrying them with me and hope to use.

  • #2
    ....what do you think?

    This is from the order that finally stopped FRO


    [27] The Director has an obligation to be reasonable in examining orders that the FRO is bound to enforce. This will involve an analysis of the documents that form the foundation of the support obligation. Usually the most contentious issue faced by the Director is the terminating event. The issue to be addressed should be approached as follows:


    (a)
    Can the terminating event be determined by a clear and defined date?


    (b)
    Does the support document use plain and clear language?


    (c)
    Does the terminating event depend on deliberately ambiguous language?


    (d)
    Does the terminating event depend on information extraneous to the language used in the support order?


    [28] The facts of this case are akin to clause 8(4)(b) of the Act, “the support order or support deduction order states that the support obligation terminates on a set calendar date, and that date arrives”. One of the several terminating events is the child or children achieving the age of eighteen. There is no dispute as to the ages of the children. It should have been patently clear to the Director that the support obligation would terminate when the youngest child reached the age of eighteen, on 9 March 2002. On that date, the Director should not have collected further support.

    [29] Further, it should have been patently clear to the Director that the parties did not vary the terminating events.

    [30] The Director was sidetracked over one of the other terminating events, “the children cease to be children of the marriage”. This, of course, is the use of deliberately ambiguous language. Extraneous information, outside of the language of the clause, would be required to determine the terminating event. The Director would not get involved in such a process. That is for the court to determine in an application brought by the payor. It was not adequately explained why the Director went down this road, when there was no need to do so.

    [31] To aggravate matters, from a cost perspective, Justices Yvon A. Renaud and Malcolm G. McLeod, presiding in conferences, twice commented to the Director that the terminating event was precise and clear. Yet the Director ignored these comments.

    Comment


    • #3
      .....thanks

      Comment

      Our Divorce Forums
      Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
      Working...
      X