elivering better enforcement
D
of spousal and child support payments:
Proposed changes
to the Maintenance
Enforcement Act
Discussion
Paper
Prepared by
the Policy, Planning, and Research Branch,
Department of Justice
April 2016
DELIVERING BETTER ENFORCEMENT OF SPOUSAL AND CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS: PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT ACT
About this discussion
Thousands of Nova Scotia families depend on the Maintenance Enforcement Program (MEP)
for the reliable delivery of court-ordered payments for spousal and child support. These
payments are called maintenance.
Here’s how it works:
· The payor (the person paying support) sends payments to the program.
· The program forwards the payments to the recipient (the person receiving support).
If the payor defaults (misses a payment), the program is authorized to take action. That
authority is spelled out in the Maintenance Enforcement Act (MEA).
The Department of Justice is considering a number of changes to the Act to improve the
program’s ability to enforce payments and get money to the children and recipients who need it.
This discussion paper invites you to comment on three of the changes that the department
is considering:
1 Using the Internet to ask for the public’s help in locating missing payors who have
persistently failed to pay support
2 Recognizing electronic communication (for example, email) as a legitimate way
to serve notice
3 Holding money seized from a payor for future payments after outstanding arrears
are paid if the payor persistently fails to make payments and is unwilling to work
with the program
Your comments will help shape a bill to improve the Act and inform ongoing improvements
to the program.
The deadline for submitting your comments is May 31, 2016.
You can participate in any of the following ways:
• E-mail your comments to: [email protected]
• Send your comments by regular mail to: Nova Scotia Department of Justice, Policy,
Planning and Research, P.O. Box 7, Halifax NS B3J 2L6
• Phone 902-424-6094 for a copy of the paper.
• Use TTY through the Disabled Persons Commission at: 902-424-2667, or toll free
within Nova Scotia at 1-877-996-9954.
We respect your privacy.
Your submission will become a government record and is subject to Nova Scotia’s Freedom
of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Any personal information in your submission
will be kept in confidence, subject to the requirements of the Act.
2
DELIVERING BETTER ENFORCEMENT OF SPOUSAL AND CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS: PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT ACT
Background
The Maintenance Enforcement Program is a public service of the Nova Scotia Department of
Justice. Its purpose is to help coordinate court-ordered support payments for families.
The Nova Scotia government and the Department of Justice have made it a priority to
ensure that families are well served by the program. To that end, the Department of Justice
is now acting on the recommendations made in the 2015 Maintenance Enforcement
Program Review Committee Report.1 This involves many changes to policies and practices,
including improvements to customer service. In the September 2015 Minister’s Response
to the Review, the department also committed to considering changes to the Maintenance
Enforcement Act.
This discussion paper focuses on three changes to the Act that the department is
considering. They are aimed at improving the program’s ability to deal with files that are
hard to enforce—for example, because the payor cannot be found or because the payor is
no longer earning income but has not made a court application to update the maintenance
order. Your comments will help the department consider these legislative changes.
As of March 31, 2015, there were 14,337 cases
enrolled in the program, and $47.2 million was
collected and paid to support families. Currently,
65 per cent of Nova Scotians enrolled in the program
receive full payments every month. This is consistent
with collection rates in other provinces.
As of March 31, 2016, payments owing but not collected from payors totaled approximately
$62.1 million. Seventy-two per cent of the unpaid amount is owed by 20 per cent of payors
who are persistently late with their payments or who never pay.
Legislative change is a way to improve collection and assist MEP staff in their efforts to
enforce court-ordered support payments.
1 You can find out more about the 2015 Maintenance Enforcement Program Review at: novascotia.ca/just/MEPreview
3
DELIVERING BETTER ENFORCEMENT OF SPOUSAL AND CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS: PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT ACT
PROPOSAL 1:
Seeking the public’s help
in finding payors
Maintenance enforcement programs in Ontario and Alberta ask for the public’s help in
locating missing payors who owe money. The programs do this by posting the missing
payors’ names, photographs and other identifying information on websites. Members of the
public are asked to contact those provincial programs if they know the whereabouts of these
payors so that enforcement action can proceed against them.
Alberta’s website “Help us Find Payors” has been active since 2000 and Ontario’s “Good
Parents Pay” website has been active since 2007. In both provinces, photographs and
information are only posted about missing payors who owe money after all other ways to
locate them have been unsuccessful and it has been at least six months since the payor
made their last support payment. Ontario also requires the consent of the recipient before it
will post the missing payor’s information.
Nova Scotia is considering creating a website similar to those in Ontario and Alberta. This
would be another tool to locate missing payors. It is recognized that this could have an
impact on children.
Questions
1A
Should Nova Scotia post on a dedicated website on the Internet the names,
photographs and other identifying information of payors who are missing and have
persistently failed to make payments, and ask the public for help in finding them?
m Yes
m No
Reasons:
4
DELIVERING BETTER ENFORCEMENT OF SPOUSAL AND CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS: PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT ACT
1B
If you answered yes to Question 2a, should Nova Scotia get the permission of the
recipient before posting the name, photo and other identifying information about a
payor who has persistently failed to make payments—and only post that information
if the recipient agrees?
m Yes
m No
Reasons:
PROPOSAL 2:
Changing the way
we serve notice
Under section 42 of the Maintenance Enforcement Act, payors and recipients must provide
MEP with their current address and payors must also provide their current employment
information.
When a maintenance order is not being followed and support is not being paid, MEP must
start an administrative enforcement action and send written notice of this action to the
payor, primarily by regular mail. If MEP cannot find the payor because the payor has failed
to give current address or employment information to MEP, notice of the enforcement action
will not reach the payor. MEP also notifies recipients of steps taken or information required
to enforce their files, and cannot do so without current contact information.
British Columbia decided to include in their legislation that if a payor or recipient does not
inform its MEP about a change of address, the MEP is not required to take any steps to
5
DELIVERING BETTER ENFORCEMENT OF SPOUSAL AND CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS: PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT ACT
determine the current address of the payor or recipient. Instead, the MEP may proceed with
any enforcement or other action without notice to the payor or recipient.
The Department of Justice is considering adding a similar provision to Nova Scotia’s
Maintenance Enforcement Act. Nova Scotia’s amendment would not completely remove the
requirement to send notice to a payor or recipient when they have not given current address
information. The Act would state that a notice of administrative enforcement action or
any other notification would be effective 10 days after it is sent to the last known mailing
address or is sent electronically (for example, email) to the payor or recipient.
The proposal involves two changes: to recognize electronic communication (for example,
email) as a legitimate way to serve notice; and to establish that 10 days after notice has
been sent it is considered to be received.
Questions
2A
When a payor has not given current address or employer information to MEP, should
any notice sent to the payor’s last known mailing address or electronic address be
considered received 10 days after it was sent?
m Yes
m No
Reasons:
2B
W
hen a recipient has not given current address information to MEP, should any
notice sent to the recipient’s last known mailing address or electronic address be
considered received 10 days after it was sent?
m Yes
Reasons:
m No
6
DELIVERING BETTER ENFORCEMENT OF SPOUSAL AND CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS: PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT ACT
2Cm
W
hat do you think of MEP sending notice by electronic means (for example, email)?
Yes
Reasons:
m No
7
DELIVERING BETTER ENFORCEMENT OF SPOUSAL AND CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS: PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT ACT
PROPOSAL 3:
Holding money
for future payments
The Department of Justice is proposing to allow MEP to hold money as security for future
payments if the payor persistently fails to make payments and is unwilling to work with
the program.
Where a payor has a history of failing to make payments, MEP would be permitted to hold
as security any extra money it obtains from that payor (money left over after the arrears
have been paid) through enforcement activity so it can pay the recipient future maintenance
payments. This means that after the arrears have been paid, MEP would provide the recipient
with the regular payments required under the maintenance order until all of the extra money
MEP is holding has been paid out.
An example of this would be if MEP received a lump sum of money through garnishment
of the payor’s bank account. After the arrears are paid from this lump sum, if there is
any money left over, MEP would hold that extra money and continue to pay the recipient
regular maintenance payments until it was gone.
Questions
3
Should MEP be permitted to hold money as security for future payments if the payor
persistently fails to make payments and is unwilling to work with MEP?
m Yes
m No
Reasons:
8
DELIVERING BETTER ENFORCEMENT OF SPOUSAL AND CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS: PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT ACT
Do you have any other comments you would like to share? Please add them here:
9
DELIVERING BETTER ENFORCEMENT OF SPOUSAL AND CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS: PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT ACT
About you
This next section is optional. The information will help us to know if we have heard from a
range of people across the province.
Please check the categories that most apply to you:
m Recipient
m Payor
m Grandparent
m Child owed support in a court order (past or present)
m Lawyer or other legal professional
m Social service or other professional
m Government staff member
m MEP staff member
m Concerned citizen
m Other:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please check the county where you are located:
m Annapolis
m Guysborough m Antigonish m Halifax
m Cape Breton m Hants m Colchester m Inverness
m Cumberland m Kings
m Digby m Lunenburg
m Elsewhere:
m Pictou
m Queens
m Richmond
m Shelburne
m Victoria
m Yarmouth
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your feedback.
10