It’s obvious to me that the individuals and the ministry running the Maintenance program haven’t been the in the program themselves. First there the word “Enforcement” within the name of the program. The word enforcement by its very nature assumes that if are you in the program, its not voluntary and you are going to need some type of negative jab or push with serious consequences to comply with the rules. So as an individual forced into the program you already have the sense that you are a criminal and you have done something wrong.
However like any criminal, if you behave yourself in the program you get a nice little treat. As follows:
Good payor status
All files registered with MEP are monitored for their payment history. Over the years, MEP has noted that there are individuals who consistently fulfill their support obligations as directed by their order. For these individuals, MEP has created a “good payor status” that recognizes those files that have a history of successful payment arrangements.
MEP will be pleased to inform a debtor if his or her file has been awarded a “good payor status” within the Maintenance Enforcement Program.
Honestly, who gives 2 fucks about getting a gold star? What would be the purpose? I don’t want good payor status, just leave me alone. Hell payor isn’t even a word in the English language.
It’s interesting that this ministry has such broad judicial powers such as:
Payments are due on the date specified for payment in the court order or agreement. All payments should be made on the due date so funds can be passed on to the debtor’s family in a timely manner. If payments are not made on time, late penalties will be charged and collection action will begin. Maintenance orders may be registered at the Personal Property Registry and at Land Titles. Federal, wage and non-wage support deduction notices or a motor vehicle restriction may also be placed.
If an account remains in default, staff may cancel clients’ driver’s licences and report their arrears to the credit bureau. Federal licences may also be witheld and accounts could be assessed to determine if a financial examination or a default hearing should be scheduled.
Of course, I could point out the numerous spelling mistakes in the above text but in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms see below.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force on April 17,1982. Section 15 of the Charter (equality rights) came into effect three years after the rest of the Charter, on April 17, 1985
Legal Rights
Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Sections 7 to 14 set out rights that protect us in our dealings with the justice system. They ensure that individuals who are involved in legal proceedings are treated fairly, especially those charged with a criminal offence.
Section 7 guarantees the life, liberty and personal security of all Canadians. It also demands that governments respect the basic principles of justice whenever it intrudes on those rights. Section 7 often comes into play in criminal matters because an accused person clearly faces the risk that, if convicted, his or her liberty will be lost.
I would argue that the rights of the individual in the case of liberty are suspended without formal charges being filled. Liberty being defined as “autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority”. The fact that the ministry can and does freeze banks accounts and cancels your passport severely limits personal freedom. They will seize all assets. This, in my opinion, has gone too far.
The Maintenance Enforcement Program initialed a survey back in 2006, with the following results:
- Half of all debtors indicated they struggle to pay maintenance.
- Two-thirds of debtors report being in bad debt.
- Depression is significantly higher than known prevalence of depression in the province.
- The majority of debtors believe the amount of maintenance they pay is unfair.
- Sixty-two percent of debtors strongly agree or agree they felt trapped by the amount of maintenance they had to pay.
They (MEP) have this information since 2006 and examining the website and current rulings the first step of MEP is to bring the hammer down on the debtor. It’s indicative of a strategy employed by this ministry to collect the monies owed no matter what. Further to this comment what’s interesting about this survey is they don’t ask how many debtors’ committed suicide – seeing no way out of a situation that puts them deeper and deeper into debt.
Let’s take my case for example:
- I argued in court that my ex was much better educated than me. She had a degree and several certifications. I argued that the $40,000 a year she made was far below what she could actually earn.
- She counter-argued that she could not get a better job because she was taking care of the children. I lost this argument.
- I argued the fact that she never did take adequate care of the children. She was often away in long meetings or on trips. Thereby the care was negligible. I lost this argument too.
- After I lost in court, I found out that the children are often left alone with no supervision. You can’t win for losing.
- What I don’t understand is why she wouldn’t want to get a higher paying job? The money I pay her to sit on her ass won’t last forever – then what? This is a mystery to me.
So you could argue that I am crying over my loss in court and you would be right. I do want to do what is right but this, something is wrong here and I can’t quite figure out what – maybe the policy is too liberal or maybe I can’t stand being controlled like this.
