Skip to content

The Family Responsibility Office can’t be Creative

by Daniel Gloade on February 26, 2016

The issues argued in the case of Myers v. Heath, 2016 ONSC 984, are really unimportant to the casual reader.  You can read the decision yourself here.

What is relevant is that the original court judge ordered that the Father’s pension benefits be paid to the F.R.O. directly.  These payments were to help reduce arrears.

The Father did the paperwork and the Mother sent them to the F.R.O.

Then nothing happened for four years.

I have dealt with the F.R.O. in my practice.  In my opinion, all orders regarding the F.R.O. need

  • a calendar start date
  • the amount of monthly support payments
  • the arrears fixed at a set amount; and
  • amount of monthly payments in addition to the support to pay off arears.

The F.R.O. must zap this money from your bank accounts.

The F.R.O. cannot do anything apart from what is recorded above.  It cannot evaluate if a condition is met or not, it cannot impose a remedy outside what is prescribed in its enabling legislation. There is no one to “think” about an order. If it can’t by typed in as a monthly payment then the F.R.O. cannot handle it.


Comments are closed.

Translate »