Ontario Works Policy Directive 5.5 - Family Support
I'm going to create blog posts examining each law that works to effect the claw back of child support from social assistance recipients. The core document for this research project is not legislation, but rather a Policy Directive of Ontario Works. It begins:
"As a condition of eligibility, applicants and recipients are, with certain exceptions, required to make reasonable efforts to pursue child or spousal support to which he/she, or a dependent, may be entitled.
Eligibility for financial assistance does not depend on the actual receipt of support payments, but on the efforts being made to obtain support. The Administrator should be satisfied that an applicant or recipient is taking action, where appropriate, to obtain support payments."
"As a condition of eligibility, applicants and recipients are, with certain exceptions, required to make reasonable efforts to pursue child or spousal support to which he/she, or a dependent, may be entitled.
Eligibility for financial assistance does not depend on the actual receipt of support payments, but on the efforts being made to obtain support. The Administrator should be satisfied that an applicant or recipient is taking action, where appropriate, to obtain support payments."
[10] The Tribunal takes guidance from section 19(1) of the Ontario Works Act, 1997 which states that
ReplyDelete19. (1) If an amount has been provided to a recipient under this Act in excess of the amount to which the recipient was entitled, the amount of the excess is an overpayment. 1997, c. 25, Sched. A, s. 19 (1).
(2) If a recipient or a dependant fails to honour an assignment or an agreement to reimburse the delivery agent, the prescribed amount is an overpayment. 1997, c. 25, Sched. A, s. 19 (2).
Overpayment as debt
(2.1) An overpayment by a delivery agent under this Act is a debt due to the delivery agent and may also be deemed by the Director to be a debt due to the Crown in right of Ontario. 2006, c. 19, Sched. E, s. 3 (1).
Source: 1404-04898 (Re), 2015 ONSBT 300 (CanLII), par. 10, , retrieved on 2016-05-16.
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsbt/doc/2015/2015onsbt300/2015onsbt300.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAPImNoaWxkIHN1cHBvcnQiAAAAAAE&resultIndex=2
"At the hearing the Appellant’s lawyer ..went on to submit that the OW and ODSP programs are “seriously flawed” and result in “systemic problems” particularly when it comes to women with dependent children who must rely on these programs for income support. She submitted that the Ministry’s computer system is not properly designed to catch and deal with assigned child support and overpayment calculations."
ReplyDeleteTo be specific, I am persuaded that any outstanding overpayment balance related to these files should not be recovered. However, I am not willing to take this further and order that the Administrator pay the Appellant the sum of money being suggested by her lawyer.
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsbt/doc/2015/2015onsbt3567/2015onsbt3567.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAPImNoaWxkIHN1cHBvcnQiAAAAAAE&resultIndex=3
In this ruling, the Social Benefits Tribunal's "sole mandate is to determine whether the Appellant provided information regarding the paternity of her daughter and subsequently sought out alternate resources in the form of child support." What's interesting here is that the "certainty principle" of nebulous parentage made an appearance. The child's illegitimate status plays a HUGE ROLE in the decision not to award the mother social assistance. The mother needs to provide "certainty" that the child has a father. She needs to "make him legitimate" in order to get social assistance. #important http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsbt/doc/2014/2014onsbt2594/2014onsbt2594.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAPImNoaWxkIHN1cHBvcnQiAAAAAAE&resultIndex=4
ReplyDelete