Many have told us over the years that you cannot sue FRO. hmmmm Seems that we have just served them. Guess this is what happens when the Government and the Courts go wrong.
Below is the draft of the Statement of Claim. Our primary motivation in all of this is that we hope to see change to FRO & Family law that makes it a better system for all of us. It is going to be a long haul but that is what it takes to make real change happen. We have recently had a criminal lawyer join us in this pursuit and he intends to bring this story to the media. So giving everyone here the heads up guess you can say.
CLAIM
1. The Plaintiff, Richard, claims as against the Defendants, Mary and the Family Responsibility Office (“the FRO”) [collectively referred to as the ‘Defendants”]:
a) An Order for a retroactive reduction of child support and re-payment of all over-payments of child support, in or around the principle amount of $56,337.80 paid by Richard to Mary for the benefit of the children, such support which was enforced by the FRO;
b) An Order that the Defendants be jointly liable for the above re-payment;
c) An Order for pre and post judgment interest pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act;
d) An Order for costs on a full-indemnity basis;
e) An Order for exemplary and punitive damages;
f) An Order for all costs incurred by Richard to defend himself at the Ontario Court of Justice level;
g) An Order for costs against the FRO for their conduct in these proceedings.
Description of the Parties
2. Mary and Richard were married on Mar 24, 1979 and were divorced by the Order of Justice Murphy dated April 9, 1992 (“the Divorce Order”).
3. There were three children born of the marriage, all of whom are now adults; Child1 born Sept 10, 1979, Child2 born Oct 3, 1980 and Child3 born Mar 9, 1984.
4. The FRO became involved in the family law proceedings given there was a support obligation at the time of separation. The original family law proceedings bore court file number XXX
The Order for Support
5. Pursuant to the parties’ Divorce Order Richard was obligated to pay the sum of $100 per month per child for a total child support obligation of $300 per month. Paragraph 5 of the Divorce Order specifically limited his obligation and provided that it would terminate upon 1 of the following events:
a.the child(ren) cease(s) to be children of the marriage:
b.the child(ren) marry;
c.the child(ren) become 18 years of age;
d.the child(ren) complete(s) their chosen program of study, up to a max of 4 successful years of post secondary education;
e.the child(ren) become(s) self-supporting; or
f.the child(ren) die(s).
6. On Sept 3, 1996, by way of Consent Order, the Divorce Order was varied by the Order of Mr. Justice DiSalle (“the Variation Order”). A review of the order will indicate that paragraph 4 of the Divorce Order was varied, but not paragraph 5. Richard’s support obligation increased to $500.00 per month for the three (3) children of the marriage; however, the terminating factors as set out in paragraph 5 of the Divorce Order were not varied. Accordingly, after the order of Justice DiSalle, Richard was obligated to pay support for each child until one of the terminating factors occurred.
Termination of Support
7. The oldest child of the marriage, born Sept 10, 1979 turned 18 on Sept 10, 1997. Child1 suffers from a disability, but as of the age of 18 years began collecting a disability supplement from the Ontario government of just under $9,000 per year.
8. Child2 was born on Oct 3, 1980 and turned 18 on Oct 3, 1998.
9. Child3 was born on March 9, 1984 and turned 18 on March 9, 2002.
10. Notwithstanding the terminating factors as contained in the Divorce Order and continued by virtue of the order of Justice DiSalle, the FRO continued to enforce support beyond the 18th birthday of each child. Significant additional monies were collected on behalf of the children, when, by court order, Richard’s support obligation had ceased.
Incorrect Enforcement of Support Arrears
11. For the purpose of determining what over-payment was made when the FRO continued to incorrectly enforce support beyond the children’s respective 18th birthdays, Richard has divided the $500 support obligation flowing from the Variation Order by three, so that his obligation for each child was $166.66.
12. The last support payment for Child1 should have been made in Sept 1997. At that time, Richard should have begun to pay a reduced level of support ($166.60 x 2 = $333.20/mo). Between Oct 1997 and Oct 1998, Richard should have paid a total of $4,331.60 in support. Instead, he paid a total of $6,500 in support, for a total over-payment of $2,168.40.
13. The last support payment for Child2 should have been made in Oct of 1998. Starting in Nov of 1998, Richard should have begun to pay a further reduced level of support of $166.60 per month for the care and maintenance of Child3. Richard should have continued to pay $166.60 in support until Child3 turned 18 years of age in Mar of 2002. During this period of time (Nov 1998-Mar 2002) Richard should have paid a total level of support of $6,830.60. Instead, he continued to pay $500 in monthly support for a total payment of $20,500 and a total over-payment of $13,669.40.
14. The last support payment for Child3 should have been made in Mar of 2002. At that time, pursuant to the Divorce Order, support should have terminated for all three children. However, the FRO continued to garnish from Richard’s pay, and eventually for his Employment Insurance and Income Tax Returns. Richard continued to pay the full quantum of support ($500 per month) from Apr 2002 through to Dec 2008 when at a default hearing it was determined that support should have terminated completely upon Child3’s 18th birthday, and that the Court had no jurisdiction to continue to enforce his child support obligation. During this period of time (Apr 2002 – Dec 2008) Richard should have paid $0.00 in support. However, he actually paid $40,500 in support.
15. The FRO incorrectly enforced, and his former spouse incorrectly accepted, $56,337.80 in over-payment of child support. This is merely the principle sum incorrectly garnished to satisfy a support obligation that should have been reduced upon each child’s 18th birthday and finally terminated completely in Mar 2002. Arrears of support accumulate under FRO legislation and compound interest is calculated based on the Courts of Justice Act. Over-payments of support should also be subject to compound interest calculations, or, if the Court deems fit, based on an average of the quarterly interest rates.
sorry folks, have to post this in 2 parts
Below is the draft of the Statement of Claim. Our primary motivation in all of this is that we hope to see change to FRO & Family law that makes it a better system for all of us. It is going to be a long haul but that is what it takes to make real change happen. We have recently had a criminal lawyer join us in this pursuit and he intends to bring this story to the media. So giving everyone here the heads up guess you can say.
CLAIM
1. The Plaintiff, Richard, claims as against the Defendants, Mary and the Family Responsibility Office (“the FRO”) [collectively referred to as the ‘Defendants”]:
a) An Order for a retroactive reduction of child support and re-payment of all over-payments of child support, in or around the principle amount of $56,337.80 paid by Richard to Mary for the benefit of the children, such support which was enforced by the FRO;
b) An Order that the Defendants be jointly liable for the above re-payment;
c) An Order for pre and post judgment interest pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act;
d) An Order for costs on a full-indemnity basis;
e) An Order for exemplary and punitive damages;
f) An Order for all costs incurred by Richard to defend himself at the Ontario Court of Justice level;
g) An Order for costs against the FRO for their conduct in these proceedings.
Description of the Parties
2. Mary and Richard were married on Mar 24, 1979 and were divorced by the Order of Justice Murphy dated April 9, 1992 (“the Divorce Order”).
3. There were three children born of the marriage, all of whom are now adults; Child1 born Sept 10, 1979, Child2 born Oct 3, 1980 and Child3 born Mar 9, 1984.
4. The FRO became involved in the family law proceedings given there was a support obligation at the time of separation. The original family law proceedings bore court file number XXX
The Order for Support
5. Pursuant to the parties’ Divorce Order Richard was obligated to pay the sum of $100 per month per child for a total child support obligation of $300 per month. Paragraph 5 of the Divorce Order specifically limited his obligation and provided that it would terminate upon 1 of the following events:
a.the child(ren) cease(s) to be children of the marriage:
b.the child(ren) marry;
c.the child(ren) become 18 years of age;
d.the child(ren) complete(s) their chosen program of study, up to a max of 4 successful years of post secondary education;
e.the child(ren) become(s) self-supporting; or
f.the child(ren) die(s).
6. On Sept 3, 1996, by way of Consent Order, the Divorce Order was varied by the Order of Mr. Justice DiSalle (“the Variation Order”). A review of the order will indicate that paragraph 4 of the Divorce Order was varied, but not paragraph 5. Richard’s support obligation increased to $500.00 per month for the three (3) children of the marriage; however, the terminating factors as set out in paragraph 5 of the Divorce Order were not varied. Accordingly, after the order of Justice DiSalle, Richard was obligated to pay support for each child until one of the terminating factors occurred.
Termination of Support
7. The oldest child of the marriage, born Sept 10, 1979 turned 18 on Sept 10, 1997. Child1 suffers from a disability, but as of the age of 18 years began collecting a disability supplement from the Ontario government of just under $9,000 per year.
8. Child2 was born on Oct 3, 1980 and turned 18 on Oct 3, 1998.
9. Child3 was born on March 9, 1984 and turned 18 on March 9, 2002.
10. Notwithstanding the terminating factors as contained in the Divorce Order and continued by virtue of the order of Justice DiSalle, the FRO continued to enforce support beyond the 18th birthday of each child. Significant additional monies were collected on behalf of the children, when, by court order, Richard’s support obligation had ceased.
Incorrect Enforcement of Support Arrears
11. For the purpose of determining what over-payment was made when the FRO continued to incorrectly enforce support beyond the children’s respective 18th birthdays, Richard has divided the $500 support obligation flowing from the Variation Order by three, so that his obligation for each child was $166.66.
12. The last support payment for Child1 should have been made in Sept 1997. At that time, Richard should have begun to pay a reduced level of support ($166.60 x 2 = $333.20/mo). Between Oct 1997 and Oct 1998, Richard should have paid a total of $4,331.60 in support. Instead, he paid a total of $6,500 in support, for a total over-payment of $2,168.40.
13. The last support payment for Child2 should have been made in Oct of 1998. Starting in Nov of 1998, Richard should have begun to pay a further reduced level of support of $166.60 per month for the care and maintenance of Child3. Richard should have continued to pay $166.60 in support until Child3 turned 18 years of age in Mar of 2002. During this period of time (Nov 1998-Mar 2002) Richard should have paid a total level of support of $6,830.60. Instead, he continued to pay $500 in monthly support for a total payment of $20,500 and a total over-payment of $13,669.40.
14. The last support payment for Child3 should have been made in Mar of 2002. At that time, pursuant to the Divorce Order, support should have terminated for all three children. However, the FRO continued to garnish from Richard’s pay, and eventually for his Employment Insurance and Income Tax Returns. Richard continued to pay the full quantum of support ($500 per month) from Apr 2002 through to Dec 2008 when at a default hearing it was determined that support should have terminated completely upon Child3’s 18th birthday, and that the Court had no jurisdiction to continue to enforce his child support obligation. During this period of time (Apr 2002 – Dec 2008) Richard should have paid $0.00 in support. However, he actually paid $40,500 in support.
15. The FRO incorrectly enforced, and his former spouse incorrectly accepted, $56,337.80 in over-payment of child support. This is merely the principle sum incorrectly garnished to satisfy a support obligation that should have been reduced upon each child’s 18th birthday and finally terminated completely in Mar 2002. Arrears of support accumulate under FRO legislation and compound interest is calculated based on the Courts of Justice Act. Over-payments of support should also be subject to compound interest calculations, or, if the Court deems fit, based on an average of the quarterly interest rates.
sorry folks, have to post this in 2 parts
Comment