Adubofuor v. Family Responsibility Office (Ont.), (2001) 144 O.A.C. 336 (CA)

• Judge: Weiler, Laskin and Charron, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: March 05, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2001), 144 O.A.C. 336 (CA)

Adubofuor v. Family Responsibility (2001), 144 O.A.C. 336 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.070

Joseph Adubofuor (applicant/respondent) v. Director, Family Responsibility Office for the Benefit of Janice Adubofuor (respondent/appellant)

(C34030)

Indexed As: Adubofuor v. Family Responsibility Office (Ont.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Weiler, Laskin and Charron, JJ.A.

March 5, 2001.

Summary:

A father defaulted on child support payments. The Director of the Family Responsibility Office sent the father a first notice under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, advising him that unless he paid the arrears or obtained a refraining order within 30 days, the Director would direct the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver's licence. The father allegedly did not receive the notice. The 30 days passed and the father's licence was suspended. Eight months later, the father moved to reinstate his licence.

The Ontario Court (General Division), ordered that the licence be reinstated for 90 days to permit the father to move to vary child support. The Director appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the order reinstating his licence. The court had no jurisdiction to make a refraining order after the 30 day period in the first notice expired. Where the Director proved valid service of the first notice on the father, the court had no jurisdiction to reinstate the licence unless one of the preconditions of s. 38(1) of the Act was established (arrears paid, arrangements to pay made, etc.). Section 38(1) did not permit reinstatement to allow a motion to vary support to be made.

Family Law - Topic 4050.2

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Enforcement - Driver's licence suspension - A father defaulted on child support payments - The Director of the Family Responsibility Office sent the father a first notice under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, advising him that unless he paid the arrears or obtained a refraining order within 30 days, the Director would direct the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver's licence - The father allegedly did not receive the notice - The 30 days passed and the father's licence was suspended - Eight months later, the father moved to reinstate his licence - The trial judge ordered that the licence be reinstated for 90 days to permit the father to apply to vary child support - The Director appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the order reinstating his licence - The trial judge had no jurisdiction to make a refraining order after the 30 day period in the first notice expired - Where the Director proved valid service of the first notice on the father, the licence could not be reinstated unless one of the preconditions of s. 38(1) of the Act was met (arrears paid, arrangements to pay made, etc.) - Section 38(1) did not permit reinstatement to allow a motion to vary support to be made.

Cases Noticed:

McLarty v. Family Responsibility Office (Ont.) (2001), 144 O.A.C. 327 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

Statutes Noticed:

Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, S.O. 1996, c. 31, sect. 38(1) [para. 10].

Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act Regulations (Ont.), Reg. 359/97, sect. 17.1 [para. 12].

Counsel:

No one appearing for the respondent;

Melanie Herbin, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on January 12, 2001, before Weiler, Laskin and Charron, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Laskin, J.A., and released on March 5, 2001.