Statistics+Canada

Statistics Canada, //Child and Spousal Support: Maintenance Enforcement Survey Statistics 2007/2008// · During the 1980s and 1990s all provinces and territories created MEPs to provide administrative support to payors and recipients of child and spousal support, and to improve compliance with support payments · The report looks at the data on the MEPs from 8 provinces and 2 territories – Newfoundland, Manitoba, and Nunavut currently don’t report // Highlights // · On March 31, 2008, 404 000 cases were registered with an MEP in the 8 provinces and 2 territories reporting data · In March 2008, the median amount of regular payment ranged from $200 in N.S. to $369 in N.W.T.   ·  In March 2008, 66% of the cases were in compliance with their regular monthly payment · 62% of cases already had arrears owing when they enrolled in an MEP __ Description of MEP Services __ · The task of MEPs is to ensure child and spousal support is paid through registering cases, processing payments, and monitoring and enforcing cases · Each jurisdiction has developed its own MEP policies and procedures to address local needs // Registration // · About half of the jurisdictions use an opt-out or automatic registration system – maintenance orders are automatically enrolled with an MEP at the time of an order · The other jurisdictions use an opt-in system, whereby enrollment is at the option of either recipient or payor // Payment Processing // · In most jurisdictions, payments can be made by cheque, money order, credit card, telephone or internet banking, or pre-authorized payment · Payments can also be made directly through an attachment of wages, a garnishment and attachment of assets · Processing payments are done through either a pay-to system or a combination of pay-to and pay-through o Pay-to refers to payments made payable to the MEP, which then forwards the payment to the recipient o The combination systems refer to a system where the payor forwards the payment to the MEP, which records the payment and then forwards it to the recipient // Enforcement // · MEPs are required to monitor and enforce the cases registered with them · MEPs have no discretion to alter the terms or amounts of payments · Some jurisdictions offer a recalculation service, which allows for a regular administrative review of the payor’s financial circumstances and possible recalculation of the payment terms, without going to court · MEPs resort to enforcement mechanisms when they are unable to secure support payments · Enforcement is done either through administrative or court enforcement · Administrative enforcement is usually the first recourse of MEPs, which might involve phoning the payor and trying to negotiate informally for payment to be made, or more formally through the garnishment of wages · Court enforcement can range form a summons to appear, to a fine or jail · The federal government through the Family Law Assistance Services Section of the federal Department of Justice, provides assistance to the enforcement efforts of the MEPs – it provides access to federal databases in order to search for payors and allows for the interception of federal funds and denial/suspension of federally administered licenses – federal employee salaries are also subject to garnishment ·  Deterrent penalties and service fees have also been introduced in some jurisdictions, such as penalties and fees for NSF cheques or late or missed payments // Case Closure // · In opt-out systems, the recipient can withdraw for a number of different reasons, and in many jurisdictions the payor’s agreement is required for the recipient to withdraw · Payors can withdraw from the program, but in limited circumstances. For instance, in some jurisdictions, if the payor was the one to register with the program and the recipient is in agreement they can withdraw. In Quebec, the recipient and payor can jointly apply to the Court to be exempt from being registered with the MEP · A case will be “terminated” if the terms of the order have expired, or either party dies
 * Short summary ** : This report examines the role of Maintenance Enforcement Programs (MEPs) and the jurisdictional differences of MEPs across Canada