J. Crown’s Priority as Tax Collector; Other Creditors

• Author: Julien D. Payne - Marilyn A. Payne
• Pages: 465-465

Page 465

Where a husband defaults in making support payments, the Crown’s assertion of a priority as a tax collector does not constitute a violation of the wife’s equality rights under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.⁸⁸Pursuant to section 4 of the Ontario Creditor’s Relief Act, lump sum orders for prospective and retroactive child support that are secured by the obligor’s interest in the former matrimonial home take priority over other judgment debts, regardless of when an enforcement process is issued or served.⁸⁹Although section 34 of the Ontario Solicitors Act confers jurisdiction on a court to protect a solicitor’s account by a charging order where the asset charged is, in truth and substance, the fruit of the action, a charging order cannot be registered against property that provides security for child support.⁹⁰

[88] Wright v. Canada (Attorney General) (1988), 13 R.F.L. (3d) 343 (Ont. Div. Ct.); but see W.B. v. J.V., [1999] O.J. No. 3489 at para. 15 (S.C.J.), wherein Kozak J. acknowledged that the payment of child support arrears might affect the applicants’ ability to pay Revenue Canada but stated that "as between the payment to Revenue Canada and the obligation to pay the child support arrears, it is well settled law that priority is to be given to the payment of child support." Compare Asre v. Asre, 2011...