Skip to content

Editorial: An unusual ruling

An unusual ruling against Ontario’s Family Responsibility Office is worthy of note.

There is a stereotype that permeates popular culture about family law disputes, often related to deadbeat parents (usually fathers) who won’t pony up child support for their kids. But the ruling in DeBiasio v. DeBiasio is different.

The case focuses on a father who had to get a refraining order against the FRO to stop it from suspending his driver’s licence.

This happened after months of attempted communication with the man’s FRO caseworker, as well as the agency’s legal services department, about an upcoming court date for a motion to terminate child support payments from his former wife.

In the case, Ontario Superior Court Justice Clifford Nelson ordered the FRO’s director to pay $7,500 after finding the agency exercised its discretion to enforce the original child support order unreasonably, and “failed to provide timely and meaningful responses to the inquiries of the payor’s counsel.”

In his ruling, Nelson said, “FRO submitted that at all meaningful times its caseworker was in regular and timely contact with the payor’s counsel. This is not correct.”

He also stated, “FRO’s counsel are lawyers. They are governed by the same Rules of Professional Conduct as lawyers in private practice. They owe the same duty of responsibility to other counsel as does any lawyer in Ontario. Timely and meaningful communication is the expected standard of behaviour.” The man’s lawyer, Annamaria Perruccio, says this is something that happens “all too often.”

Perruccio is calling for an amendment to provincial legislation to lessen the FRO’s power to strictly enforce support orders when a material change of circumstances has occurred, particularly if there’s a court date on the horizon.

Joshua Henry, a spokesman for the Ministry of Community and Social Services, said the ministry “is currently considering possible implications for policies or practices.”

This may be wise given the nature of Nelson’s ruling, which certainly indicates there are problems afoot, at least in this case.

  • Motions to Change Must Have Merit

    Dave Warren
    While I would travel a good distance to get before Justice Nelson (he has my respect), the FRO usually gives three options before any enforcement: pay now, pay over time, or bring a motion to change. That last option is too often the only tactic used by payors in default. If the Motion To Change has no merit, you are just dragging another single parent without money back before the courts. Counsel at Legal Services Branch for the FRO also have my respect. They review such motions. But once in a while, a payor squeaks by with an abusive motion and once in a while a Case Worker gets over zealous. Keeping a good relationship with counsel is the best way to get things done.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

An Ontario judge has ruled he has jurisdiction to review decisions by student unions at three post-secondary institutions that denied official status to other student groups. Do you agree with this finding?