Article content continued

As recounted in the judge’s ruling, Garrick was a fraudster who had spent time in jail for his misdeeds as recently as 2014. He had been schooled at Columbia University, had access to a trust fund and got financial help from his parents. In earlier proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice, he gave evidence that he had a penthouse apartment in New York City.

When FRO brought Garrick’s matter before Justice Kurz in July, 2017, Garrick was $55,000 in arrears of child support. He claimed that he was unable to pay as he said he had spent 524 days in jail and more than 1,000 days under house arrest on fraud-related matters.

The FRSAEA provides a myriad of ways that FRO can enforce support which is in default: it can require that employers remit up to 50 per cent of a payor’s employment income, place writs of execution on a payor’s property, seize tax refunds, garnish bank accounts and suspend driver’s licences and passports.

When those actions do not result in the support being paid, FRO will, on the support recipient’s behalf, ask the court to order jail time.

Under the FRSAEA, FRO must pursue the most severe remedies at a default hearing. At this hearing, the defaulting payor is presumed to have the ability to pay the support in arrears or must show a valid reason why he cannot.

A “valid reason” is one over which the payor has no control: disabling illnesses or involuntary unemployment are the usual reasons.

But the court is also obliged to look further: the payor must show that he has accepted his support responsibility and has placed the child’s interest over his own. The court expects evidence of reasonable, diligent and legitimate efforts to comply with the support order, including whether the payor has ever paid child support voluntarily. In Garrick’s case, the judge found that he had not, and called him “the author of his own misfortune.”