Thumbing your nose at the court system

[KMF]

arabian, I honestly didn't know that. My lawyer is planning on sending the employer a letter, telling them if they don't go back to garnishing his wages, we'll be taking legal action against them. I'm just surprised that a company of this size (if I mentioned their name, you would know who they are), would be so stupid as to stop, when FRO never told them to. They never even informed FRO that his employment with them ended. It's very frustrating. I should be able to count on getting my support at the same time each month. For instance, he paid it on September 6th and then not again until October 30th, and so far, nothing this month.

I think I'll call my case worker and ask why they aren't doing anything about his employer. At least when they were paying it, I was getting it at the same time twice a month.

[arabian]

If your lawyer is a family law practitioner he/she should know this. Some lawyers who don't practice exclusively in family law may not be fully versed in FRO policies.

Good for you for finding this forum and asking the question. It shows you are taking an active role in your case and not relying 100% of your lawyer to do everything.

If you don't get a satisfactory answer from FRO case worker don't give up. Your next step after that might be the Ombudsman.

[arabian]

Another thing to ask your case worker, and the Ombudsman if you have to go that route, is about the Privacy Act and how your queries are protected.

[arabian]

. They never even informed FRO that his employment with them ended.

I believe the employer is legally obligated to inform FRO when employment ceases. They have a certain time limit that they have to do this by.

This should be clearly spelled out in the FRO maintenance enforcement act.

[Berner_Faith]

Question...just because I am curious... How can FRO enforce garnishment, if someone is not actually an employee, but say a contractor?

For example, a friend of mine does voice work (messages on hold and similar things), she was an employee of the company, but due to cut backs, they cut her position. Usually weekly, she still does voice work for them, but instead, submits an invoice to them for her services and they pay it, She is expected to claim this as income on her taxes (which she does) and ends up owing money every year because of it, however, she is not an employee for the company.

How can FRO insist the company she is submitting invoices too to garnish her wages? Wouldn't that mean they have to go after every company that hires her to do work, even though she is self employed?

Please note: my friend has no children and doesn't pay support, I was more wondering how it happens in situations like that, as it seems this is what the OP's ex has done

[arabian]

Garnishment extends to accounts payable (money paid to contractors or companies and their employees) and so on.

Maintenance enforcement programs have lots of power and authority. Challenge is getting a good collection officer on your case.

[KMF]

I was wondering the same thing. In my ex's case, his company is just him, working under a company's name. It's bogus. He's been employed doing the same thing within the same company for three years. Only difference is, they pay his "company" rather than to him, personally.

The Ombudsman is a good idea. I've already been in contact with them once before when FRO was screwing around, and they were right on top of it. I've also been in touch with them regarding the uselessness of CAS, to go on record when they're finally able to oversee them. They're really helpful.

[arabian]

Berner Faith - if you provide FRO/MEP with a list of the companies they work for you can be sure that they do, in fact, contact each and every person on the list. When you are on the 'deadbeat' list you get special treatment.

[Berner_Faith]

That is interesting... I understood how it worked for people who were employed by a company, but I guess the tricky thing is, what if they don't work for a company? Like a general contractor? Or even if they do work for a company, how obligated is the company to garnish wages, because they are not actually paying wages, they are paying a bill... I have just never heard of a company or person garnishing a contractors bill.

OP- I hope you can find some satisfaction really soon.

[KMF]

Thanks so much for all the help and the well wishes. My lawyer wanted to write to the employer after he does my affidavit for the uncontested trial. I'm sure he has a reason for this, as he's always been right. I really lucked out with my lawyer. He's primarily a criminal defense attorney, and he says my ex is the nastiest person he's ever dealt with, if that's any indication. I'm just thankful I got my kids and myself out from under his roof. That's the most important thing.

In the meantime, I'm going to contact FRO and ask why they aren't enforcing the deduction notice.

[arabian]

BF - if a company is served with a notice to garnishee wages they MUST garnishee or risk being responsible for fines and the total amount of the debt, not just the 40% or whatever it is being garnished.

My ex has always been self employed, with his own company, and his "contractor" pay is indeed garnished. He can call himself whatever he wants to, doesn't matter. He provides a service and gets paid for it. That's good enough for MEP.

Another good thing for FRO to know is if the deadbeat is a member of a trade union. They love that - easy pickings.

There are many types of deduction notices. If you can't find anything explaining the different types on a FRO website to to the Alberta MEP online website. Lots of information on collection actions and I believe most of the maintenance enforcement agencies are the same insofar as collection.

Something else to look into is the difference between the FRO Act and their Operation Policies. If you can get a copy of that I would be very interested in a copy. I've been trying to get one for Alberta but it seems to be a very closely guarded internal document.

[KMF]

I'll see if my lawyer can find any information. If so, I'll pass it along to you, arabian

[OhMy]

Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 31

Working on finding operational policies.

[MS Mom]

KMF - I haven't read through all the posts, so I'm sorry if I'm repeating info here.

In Canada you can be self employed. However, you cannot be self-employed and work under contract for one employer exclusively.

There are guidelines for self-employment and the tax benefits it holds specifically because of situations like this.

While there are few variances, the basic rule of thumb to whether a person is self-employed or an actual employee are:

1. Do they use their own tools and/or equipment? If you're using equipment that belongs to the business, you are not self-employed. You are an employee.
2. Do they work for another organization? You can not be self employed working for exclusively one organization. That's employment.
3. Are they actively seeking other contract opportunities? Again, you can't work for one place and claim to be self-employed.

Aside from avoiding supports, people are avoiding taxes, EI, and direct CPP contributions.

A document, similar to a T4 is issued by the company to contractors like your husband annually. A copy is sent to CRA, just like T4s.

[arabian]

MSMom - you are correct insofar as it applying to CRA. However, many people are self-employed and contract themselves to one employer as an owner-operator. Taxi drivers and truckers are just one example. Some categories even have collective agreements. They pay their own taxes and are not considered employees. This category does indeed get garnished from FRO/MEP. I think they closed that loophole some years back as everyone was becoming a "contractor."

What is important in collection of support arrears is the wording of the order and the individual policies of the maintenance enforcement act.

Most maintenance enforcement agencies don't even want to admit there are policy manuals which specify things. They are closely-guarded as far as I know and may even be referred to as "training manuals." I would dearly love to see one because I know they exist.