McAllister v. The Queen, 2007 TCC 708 (CanLII)
On these facts, Kempo, J. held that the effect of the assignment was to convey to the Ontario government Mrs. Bishop's "… legal and equitable interests respecting the income stream derived from the 1975 support order which, effectively, vested in the [MCSS]'s favour all her existing and potential rights of action and recovery as between herself and [her former spouse]; …" and that it "… effectively divested her of any discretion with respect to any amounts paid or to be paid thereunder to the [MCSS]"[15]. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that "[i]t is of particular significance that the source of Mrs. Bishop's right to receipt of social assistance benefits and amounts did not arise from the assignment. Rather, their source arose from the Ontario social assistance legislation itself. Her assignment was merely one of the preconditions attached to her enjoyment of these rights."[16]
The assignment agreement was not in evidence but the fact of the assignment is not challenged by the Respondent. Though not relevant to these appeals, for the sake of clarity, the assignment to MCSS was later cancelled and re-assigned to another government agency, the Cochrane District Social Services Administration Board, which had taken over responsibility for certain aspects of the program under new legislation. Exhibit A-2.
Comments
Post a Comment