McLarty v. Family Responsibility Office (Ont.), (2001) 144 O.A.C. 327 (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. 327 (CA)

McLarty v. Family Responsibility (2001), 144 O.A.C. 327 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.069

Ian Michael McLarty (applicant/respondent) v. Director, Family Responsibility Office for the Benefit of Sylvie Langlois (respondent/appellant)

(C34029)

Indexed As: McLarty 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, as he moved (without informing the Director or the Registrar) several months before. The 30 days passed and the father's licence was suspended. The Director then sent (and the father admitted receipt of) notice under the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act that unless the father paid the arrears or entered into a repayment plan within 40 days, the Director would apply to the federal government requesting that the father be denied all federal licences. The father moved to reinstate his licence, claiming he never received the first notice.

The Ontario Court (General Division), without written reasons, issued a refraining order, but directed that it be terminated unless the father applied to vary the current support order within 20 days. The court lifted the licence suspension and ordered the Director to withdraw any federal licence denial application. The Director appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. The court had no jurisdiction to make a refraining order after the 30 day period in the first notice expired. However, suspension of a driver's licence required valid service of the first notice. Where service was disputed, the Director was obligated to prove service. Although service was permitted at the last known address in the records of the Director and Registrar of Motor Vehicles, the Director failed to file any evidence to prove that the father's old address remained on file. Had the Director filed such evidence, the father would have been deemed to have been served notwithstanding that he moved and did not receive the first notice. The court held that the federal licence denial application was validly served and the court had no jurisdiction to order the Director to withdraw the application.

Family Law - Topic 4050.2

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Enforcement - Driver's licence suspension - The Ontario Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act provided for the suspension of a driver's licence to enforce payment of support - The Director of the Family Responsibility Office sent a defaulting father a first notice under the 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, as he moved (without informing the Director or the Registrar) several months before - The 30 days passed and the licence was suspended - The father moved to reinstate his licence, claiming he never received the first notice - The trial judge issued a refraining order, but directed that it be terminated unless the father applied to vary the current support order within 20 days - The court lifted the licence suspension - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had no jurisdiction to make a refraining order after the 30 day period in the first notice expired - However, suspension of a driver's licence required valid service of the first notice - Where service was disputed, the Director was obligated to prove service - Although service was permitted at the last known address in the records of the Director and Registrar of Motor Vehicles, the Director failed to file any evidence to prove that the father's old address remained on file - Had the Director filed such evidence, the father would have been deemed to have been served notwithstanding that he moved and did not receive the first notice - The court ordered reinstatement of the licence - See paragraphs 1 to 22.

Family Law - Topic 4050.3

Divorce - Corollary relief - Maintenance - Enforcement - Federal licence suspension - The Director of the Family Responsibility Office sent a defaulting notice under the federal Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act that unless the father paid the support arrears or entered into a repayment plan within 40 days, the Director would apply to the federal government requesting that the father be denied all federal licences - The trial judge ordered that the Director withdraw the application - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the federal licence denial application was validly served and the court had no jurisdiction to order the Director to withdraw the application - See paragraphs 23 to 29.

Cases Noticed:

Kasprzak v. Family Responsibility Office (Ont.), [1999] O.J. No. 3485 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Ivan's Film's Inc. v. Kostelac (1988), 29 C.P.C.(2d) 20 (Ont. Master), refd to. [para. 20].

Statutes Noticed:

Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 4, sect. 67(1) [para. 23]; sect. 67(3)(c) [para. 24]; sect. 71 [para. 27].

Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, S.O. 1996, c. 31, sect. 19 [para. 19]; sect. 34 [para. 10]; sect. 35(3) [para. 12]; sect. 38(1) [para. 13].

Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act Regulations (Ont.), Reg. 167/97, sect. 17(3) [para. 17]; Reg. 359/97, sect. 17.1 [para. 17].

Counsel:

Ian M. McLarty, respondent, on his own behalf;

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.