Decision Content
Sassie v. Klondike, 2015 NWTSC 60 S-1-CV-1997007021
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANNA SASSIE
Applicant
- and -
ROY KLONDIKE
Respondent
__________________________________________________________
Transcript of the Chambers Application held before The
Honourable Justice A. M. Mahar, sitting in Yellowknife,
in the Northwest Territories, on the 24th day of September,
2015.
__________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
Mr. C. Buchanan: Counsel for the Administrator of
Maintenance Enforcement
Mr. D. Large, Q.C.: Counsel for the Respondent,
Roy Klondike
Official Court Reporters
1 THE COURT: Number one Sassie and
2 Klondike.
3 MR. LARGE: Your Honour, my name is Donald
4 Large. I'm with Legal Aid out of Yellowknife. I
5 represent the applicant, Mr. Klondike, and
6 Mr. Klondike has some issues about getting his
7 child support order varied.
8 Mr. Buchanan, my friend, is with the legal
9 services division. He represents the Director of
10 Maintenance Enforcement.
11 MR. BUCHANAN: The Administrator.
12 MR. LARGE: The Administrator of
13 Maintenance Enforcement.
14 Your Honour, this matter has been ongoing
15 for a little while. And we did obtain an order
16 from Justice Smallwood last date we were in
17 court, which was the 22nd of August, and at that
18 time, I believe -- I'll have to speak to my
19 friend, but I believe we both understood that
20 there was a maintenance order being enforced
21 against Mr. Klondike. And the day after we were
22 in court, I received correspondence from my
23 friend, which I have put in the form of an
24 affidavit of information sworn by my
25 administrative assistant, Barbara Ruiz, we filed
26 on the 15th of September, and in that letter, my
27 friend advises me that he's reviewed his file and
Official Court Reporters
1
1 that currently Anna Sassie does not have a
2 support order registered for enforcement in the
3 NWT Maintenance Enforcement Program and that in
4 late April of 2015, his client learned that
5 Ms. Sassie had left the jurisdiction and moved to
6 Alberta, and we subsequently advised Ms. Sassie
7 that she would need to register with Alberta
8 Maintenance Enforcement to continue enforcement
9 and that her file with us would be closed
10 shortly, and her file was indeed closed on the
11 19th of August.
12 Now, my client is relatively
13 unsophisticated, Your Honour. He resides in Fort
14 Liard. He does not read or write, and any
15 affidavit that we get from him, I deal with the
16 court worker in Fort Simpson, Patricia Waugh.
17 She goes to see him in Fort Liard. It's like a
18 three-and-a-half-hour drive. And she reads the
19 affidavit to him, as she did in this case, and
20 then it gets sworn.
21 So my friend, just moments before the Court
22 came to order this morning, gave me a copy of a
23 case I hadn't previously seen. It was Apples
24 and, I guess, Maurice Cloughley -- is that how
25 you say that? Maurice Cloughley and the
26 Commissioner of the NWT. It's a reported
27 decision, it was an ex parte matter, and I'll
Official Court Reporters
2
1 speak to that after my friend has a moment to
2 present his arguments on the matter. As I say, I
3 previously was unaware of the matter.
4 I am familiar with Rule 38, on which,
5 apparently, this Apples case was decided, and the
6 rule is fairly clear, requires an application for
7 an order for substitutional service to be
8 supported by an affidavit of the deponent stating
9 why it is impractical to effect service on the
10 respondent (in this case, it would be on
11 Ms. Sassie) and that -- proposing an alternative
12 form of service.
13 And in his affidavit, he states that -- I'm
14 sorry. He states in his affidavit -- it was the
15 one that was filed -- the only one he's filed on
16 the 31st of July of this year at -- just one
17 moment. He said that in paragraph 3 that he --
18 the applicant took him to court for child support
19 in 1997. He did not appear on that date. He
20 didn't -- he cannot read or write, had no idea
21 that he was required to be in court. In any
22 event, he indicates in his affidavit that it was
23 a nine-year relation (paragraph 2), they had two
24 children, and that the relationship ended quite
25 some time ago and that the children have all
26 reached the age of majority. And he states that
27 in his belief, at paragraph 9, that the
Official Court Reporters
3
1 applicant, Ms. Sassie, resides in Calgary. He
2 doesn't have any idea what her current address
3 is. He had an old phone number which he says has
4 been now assigned to some other person unrelated
5 to the applicant. He states his relationship
6 ended years ago and "I have had no recent contact
7 with her", and then he explains in paragraph 10
8 that his lawyer, myself, advised him that an
9 internet search was conducted but was
10 unsuccessful and that Maintenance Enforcement was
11 contacted, requested that they provide her
12 address and that request was refused, and there's
13 correspondence between myself and the Maintenance
14 Enforcement office as an exhibit. So that's
15 basically where we're at.
16 The order of Justice Smallwood provided at
17 paragraph 2 that we be permitted to serve
18 substitutionally the respondent by serving the
19 Family Responsibility Officer of the Maintenance
20 Enforcement Program identified in paragraph one,
21 because when we were before Justice Smallwood, we
22 fully expected that somebody had an order they
23 were trying to enforce against Mr. Klondike and
24 that subsequently proved to be not the case.
25 So we have no way of finding out where
26 Ms. Sassie is. The Director, however -- the
27 Administrator does. At least in April of this
Official Court Reporters
4
1 year there was correspondence coming from the
2 Administrator's office to Ms. Sassie advising her
3 that she needs to deal with Alberta Maintenance
4 Enforcement, that her file held locally here
5 would be closed. So I think that that's the most
6 practical way to bring this to Ms. Sassie's
7 attention, have the Director -- the Administrator
8 of Maintenance Enforcement serve her these
9 documents and then bring the matter back to court
10 at a later date.
11 THE COURT: So, basically, what you're
12 asking me to do is follow up on Justice
13 Smallwood's order by clarifying that even though
14 the Director is no longer responsible for the
15 maintenance of the file, that they are to still
16 be considered the parties for substitutional
17 service?
18 MR. LARGE: Yes, that's what I would be
19 (indiscernible) --
20 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Large.
21 Mr. Buchanan.
22 MR. BUCHANAN: Your Honour, again, as my
23 friend said, I'm counsel for the Administrator of
24 Maintenance Enforcement and we were severed with
25 a Notice of Motion and affidavit of Roy Klondike.
26 The Administer opposes the application of
27 the respondent for an order for substituted
Official Court Reporters
5
1 service on the applicant by serving the
2 Administrator. We take no position on the other
3 relief sought by the respondent.
4 As my friend explained, at the time that
5 Justice Smallwood's order was granted, we had
6 consented to the order in its form with an
7 understanding from my client that the applicant
8 had been advised to contact her jurisdiction's
9 Maintenance Enforcement office, which at the time
10 we understood to move to Alberta. Our file had
11 been closed and so we consented to that order.
12 We subsequently learned that, in fact,
13 Ms. Klondike -- or Ms. Sassie had not registered
14 with Alberta MEP, so at this time there's no
15 office responsible for her file, and so
16 essentially the order is ineffective.
17 And so moving into my friend's submissions
18 today that he would like the Administrator
19 served, we, in our respectful submission, oppose
20 this application and ask that it be dismissed for
21 two reasons. The first being that the respondent
22 has not met the test required to obtain order for
23 substituted service, and the second is that it
24 would be inappropriate to require the
25 Administrator to effect service on the applicant
26 on behalf of the respondent.
27 So respecting the test, the first point is
Official Court Reporters
6
1 that under Rule 38(1) and (2) of the Rules of
2 Court, it sets out what must be shown through
3 evidence by an applicant seeking a sub-service
4 order. My friend went through the Rules, so I'll
5 leave it to Your Honour to review.
6 Essentially, it is our submission that the
7 respondent's affidavit fails to show why prompt
8 personal service is impractical and why serving
9 the Administrator with the Notice of Motion will
10 or is likely to be effective in providing notice
11 to the applicant.
12 So turning to the affidavit of Roy Klondike.
13 The respondent outlines his effort to make
14 contact with the applicant in paragraphs 9 and
15 10. My friend had reviewed those efforts. At
16 paragraph 9, Mr. Klondike -- Mr. Klondike states
17 that he's out of contact with the applicant, he
18 believes she lives in Calgary, but he doesn't
19 know what her address is. He tried calling her,
20 but the telephone number he has is no longer the
21 applicant's. In paragraph 10, Mr. Klondike
22 further states that his lawyer conducted an
23 unsuccessful internet search for the applicant's
24 address and telephone number, his lawyer also
25 contacted the Administrator to request the
26 applicant's contact information, but the
27 Administrator refused that request. In our
Official Court Reporters
7
1 respectful submission, these efforts are not
2 sufficient to show that it is impractical to
3 personally serve the applicant.
4 The meaning of "impractical" under Rule 38
5 was considered by this honourable court in the
6 case of Apples v. Northwest Territories
7 Commissioner, 2009 NWTSC 3, and I have a copy for
8 Your Honour --
9 THE COURT: Thank you.
10 MR. BUCHANAN: -- to hand up. It's a
11 relatively short case and it's well known in this
12 jurisdiction.
13 THE COURT: Thank you.
14 MR. BUCHANAN: In that case, the Plaintiffs
15 sought an order for substitutional service on the
16 Defendants with the Statement of Claim by posting
17 an ad in a local newspaper in New Zealand where
18 the Defendant was known to live. Similar to
19 Mr. Klondike's application, the Plaintiffs in
20 Apples filed an affidavit stating they were not
21 able to locate the address of the Defendant
22 through an internet search. In dismissing the
23 Plaintiff's application, Justice Cooper compared
24 Rule 38 to Alberta's rule which is identical in
25 wording. At paragraph 7 of that case, Justice
26 Cooper sites Stevenson and Côté, which states the
27 following:
Official Court Reporters
8
1 The Rules uses the word
"impractical" with respect to
2 effecting prompt personal service,
but decided cases suggest that
3 courts apply a stricter standard,
i.e., practical impossibility of
4 serving the defendant personally.
The affidavit supporting an
5 application for substitutional
service must state why prompt
6 personal service is impractical, and
show that reasonable efforts were
7 made to locate and to personally
serve the defendant. What is
8 reasonable will depend upon the
circumstances of the case, including
9 the type that relief claimed, the
amounts involved, the efforts made
10 to locate the defendant, and the
steps taken to effect personal
11 service ...
12 Justice Cooper found that the stricter
13 standard applied in the Northwest Territories.
14 Your Honour, in our respectful submission,
15 Mr. Klondike has not taken enough steps to locate
16 the Defendant to say that prompt personal service
17 is impractical. For example, it is open to the
18 respondent to retain the services of a skip
19 tracer or process server in Calgary to locate and
20 serve the applicant. He could also ask his
21 children if they know where the mother is, and he
22 can contact the lawyer for the applicant in the
23 original hearing to see if they have current
24 contact information for the applicant. Based on
25 Mr. Klondike's affidavit, none of these
26 reasonable steps have been taken. As well,
27 Mr. Klondike's affidavit fails to state that he
Official Court Reporters
9
1 believes that serving the Administrator of
2 Maintenance Enforcement with the Notice of Motion
3 will or is likely to be effective in effecting
4 personal service on the Application.
5 THE COURT: Perhaps you can focus in on
6 that because that is my primary concern. Are you
7 aware whether or not the Director has current
8 information? Either Director, here or in
9 Alberta.
10 MR. BUCHANAN: Your Honour, we do have
11 contact information for the applicant. We do not
12 know whether it's current. As my friend stated,
13 we did receive correspondence, or sent
14 correspondence - I'm not clear which - and so I
15 do not know whether that correspondence was
16 received if it had been sent, but I do know that
17 my client does have an address.
18 THE COURT: All right.
19 MR. BUCHANAN: So our second submission is
20 that, respectfully, it would inappropriate for
21 this honourable court to require the
22 Administrator to accept service on behalf of the
23 applicant.
24 First, it would not always be the case the
25 Administrator will have the contact information
26 for the creditor. The respondent assumes that we
27 have the updated address of the applicant, but
Official Court Reporters
10
1 there's no evidence establishing this, although,
2 as I had said, we do have an address. I do not
3 know the current status of the address. Second,
4 even if the Administer had contact to reach the
5 applicant, the Administrator is not permitted to
6 release such information in these circumstances
7 pursuant to the Access to Information and
8 Protection of Privacy Act. And I have a copy of
9 that Act, Your Honour, and I'll refer to a few
10 sections that are relevant. (Indiscernible).
11 THE COURT: Thank you. You wouldn't be
12 required to release the address, you would simply
13 be required to act on the address. Correct?
14 MR. BUCHANAN: Well, what my friend is asking
15 is that we accept service on behalf of the
16 applicant, which requires us to send the Notice
17 of Motion to the applicant and ensure that it's
18 been served. So, essentially, he's passing the
19 responsibility on to our office to incur the
20 costs and ensure that service is effective.
21 So under Section 2 of the ATIPP Act, which I
22 have handed to Your Honour, the Applicant's
23 address and telephone number is considered
24 personal information under the definition. Under
25 Section 47, which I have flagged, it states that
26 "A public body may disclose personal information
27 only ... (b) in accordance with this Division."
Official Court Reporters
11
1 And I should note that the Administrator is a
2 public body.
3 Section 48, next one down, sets out the
4 various circumstances under which personal
5 information may be disclosed, and I have
6 identified two relevant paragraphs. First is (a)
7 which states that a public body may use personal
8 information only "(a) for the purpose for which
9 the information was collected or compiled or for
10 a use consistent with that purpose". The second
11 relevant paragraph is (n). Disclosure is
12 permitted "for the purpose of complying with a
13 subpoena or warrant issued for an order made --
14 or an order made by a court, person or body that
15 has the authority to compel the production of
16 information or with the rule of court that
17 relates to the production of information."
18 So regarding the first one, sub (a), the
19 Administrator collects a creditor's personal
20 information only for the purposes of enforcement
21 of a support order. This purpose is set out in
22 the Maintenance Orders Enforcement Act. The
23 respondent is seeking a sub-service order to
24 commence an application to vary a support order,
25 not enforce a support order. In fact, the
26 respondent is actually requesting that the order
27 cease being enforced.
Official Court Reporters
12
1 In our submission, the variation of a
2 support order is not the same thing as
3 enforcement, and so the disclosure of the
4 Applicant's personal information for the
5 respondent's application is not consistent with
6 the purpose for which it was collected, thus
7 ATIPP does not permit its disclosure under sub
8 (a).
9 Regarding sub (n), this honourable court may
10 order the disclosure of the Applicant's personal
11 information where there is authority to do so
12 under either legislation or rule of court. In
13 our submission, there's no such authority and we
14 would defer to the respondent to show under which
15 authority such information could be produced.
16 Barring such authority, the applicant's personal
17 information cannot be disclosed under sub (n) of
18 the ATIPP Act.
19 THE COURT: It's a question of whether I
20 would determine it to be a disclosure or simply
21 responsibility of your office. Correct?
22 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, under ATIPP, it would be
23 a determination of whether it was disclosure.
24 Whether it was the responsibility of our office,
25 that would fall under --
26 THE COURT: That's your issue. Right?
27 The initial issue of whether ATIP even applies at
Official Court Reporters
13
1 all or not is whether or not it's a disclosure.
2 If it's simply a question of shifting the
3 responsibility to your office to locate and serve
4 the respondent, then there's no disclosure
5 providing that information remains within your
6 office. Correct? So the question is whether
7 it's properly the responsibility of the office to
8 undertake this. Correct?
9 MR. BUCHANAN: Well, under, under Section 48,
10 it's -- our submission, it's a use of personal
11 information, not a disclosure. So under sub (a)
12 it says that "for the purpose for which the
13 information was collected or compiled or for a
14 use consistent with that purpose". In this case,
15 ATIPP Act does prevent a public body from using
16 information or disclosing information.
17 THE COURT: But 48 simply says "a public
18 body may disclose personal information".
19 Correct? So all of the sub-headings beyond that
20 are related to a disclosure, not a use.
21 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes. I see Your Honour's
22 point. My understanding of the Act, and I would
23 have to find the specific section, is that a use
24 of the information is covered in a different
25 section from disclosure. And so in our
26 submission, this is a use that's inconsistent
27 with the collection. Essentially, we're
Official Court Reporters
14
1 protecting personal information. The creditor
2 provided personal service to the Administrator
3 with the understanding that it be kept private,
4 and what we're trying to do is protect the
5 information.
6 But Your Honour's point regarding that we be
7 asked to accept service and handle information,
8 not necessarily disclosure information to the
9 respondent, we would say that it's inappropriate
10 to require the Administrator to accept service on
11 behalf of the applicant because, in our
12 submission, this is a private matter between the
13 parties that does not involve Maintenance
14 Enforcement. The task of locating the applicant
15 and expending funds to effect service on the same
16 should not be borne by the Administrator. This
17 is the respondent's responsibility. To grant the
18 Respondent's application for substituted service
19 on the Administrator would set an unwanted
20 precedent that could open the floodgates to
21 further orders and additional costs for the
22 Administrator. The Administrator therefore asks
23 that the respondent's application be dismissed
24 with respect to the application for sub-service.
25 Subject to any questions, those are my
26 submissions.
27 THE COURT: If I could ask you one
Official Court Reporters
15
1 question. When you appeared in front of Justice
2 Smallwood, you agreed to the order. Correct?
3 MR. BUCHANAN: That's right.
4 THE COURT: At that point, you thought
5 there was an existing order in Alberta.
6 MR. BUCHANAN: At that point, we thought that
7 -- I believe this is a Northwest Territories
8 order.
9 THE COURT: You thought that the order had
10 been transferred to Alberta.
11 MR. BUCHANAN: Right. So, at that point, my
12 information from the client was that our file was
13 closed and that the file -- that we had advised
14 the applicant to register with her office, which
15 is Alberta.
16 THE COURT: So the only difference between
17 today and then is the fact that the file has been
18 closed.
19 MR. BUCHANAN: The only difference is that we
20 now know that -- well, one of the differences is
21 the file is closed. The other difference is that
22 we know that -- my client had contacted their
23 colleagues in Alberta and found out that indeed
24 she had not actually registered.
25 THE COURT: So it's not a question of how
26 much information was available to the Director,
27 it's a question of whether a file has been opened
Official Court Reporters
16
1 or closed, really.
2 MR. BUCHANAN: With respect to the wording of
3 the order, it was our understanding that she
4 would have registered with Alberta. That's what
5 she was told to do.
6 THE COURT: No, but what I'm getting at is
7 your concerns, all of your concerns with respect
8 to the Privacy Act and the rest of the concerns
9 about the propriety of this have all arisen based
10 on one simple discovery, which is that she's no
11 longer an active client as opposed to an inactive
12 client because she hasn't had the order
13 transferred. Correct?
14 MR. BUCHANAN: Right.
15 THE COURT: So you had no concerns before
16 about the use of this information for exactly
17 this purpose.
18 MR. BUCHANAN: Well, the information we were
19 to provide was the name of the jurisdiction in
20 which she would have registered, which is
21 Alberta, which the applicant -- or the Respondent
22 had already known.
23 THE COURT: But, again, you were acting on
24 behalf of this Director and you were quite happy
25 to pass this order on -- or pass the
26 substitutional service on to another similar
27 organization. Correct? You didn't see any
Official Court Reporters
17
1 impropriety with it.
2 MR. BUCHANAN: No, we had consented to
3 providing the information and that was the limit
4 of our consent. I mean, we -- whether the other
5 jurisdiction would accept sub-service is an
6 entirely different matter. We're not aware
7 whether they would have or not.
8 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
9 MR. LARGE: Just in response, Your Honour.
10 I appreciate that my friend has spent a lot of
11 time preparing for his response this morning
12 based on the provisions of the Access to
13 Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but
14 you won't find anywhere in our Notice of Motion a
15 request for the Director of Maintenance
16 Enforcement to provide us with Ms. Sassie's
17 address.
18 THE COURT: I've got that, Mr. Large.
19 Thank you.
20 MR. LARGE: So it's totally irrelevant,
21 the concerns expressed by my friend on the
22 Privacy Act.
23 Then we -- the way Legal Aid works, we got
24 a, we got a referral, and our instructions are,
25 from our administrator, to review the file and
26 prepare an opinion. So we want to see that the
27 file has some merit before we spend time on it.
Official Court Reporters
18
1 So while this evidence is not before the Court, I
2 did a quick calculation based on the financial
3 disclosure that I got from my client with the
4 assistance of the court worker, and I believe
5 that if this matter gets before a court, which is
6 what we're trying to do, his arrears will be
7 reduced to zero. He will have overpaid. But
8 that's not evidence before the Court yet.
9 But it's important that this matter proceed
10 on behalf of Mr. Klondike. I mean, it's fine for
11 Maintenance Enforcement to say, you know, this is
12 not what we do and, you know, we'll just take
13 your paycheck and we'll cancel your passport and
14 we'll grab your driver's licence and as soon as
15 you get any money coming from any source we know
16 of, we'll grab that, but, gosh, we just can't --
17 we might open the floodgates of litigation.
18 Well, you know what, I hope it does because I
19 think this matter should be resolved through a
20 legislation amendment, but that's not for me or
21 you to decide at this point. If Maintenance
22 Enforcement has these powers of financial ruin in
23 some case -- to some respondent, the least they
24 should be able to do is accept service on behalf
25 of their client. Ms. Sassie was their client and
26 they've given us the proof that we suspected was
27 there, they know where she is, or at least they
Official Court Reporters
19
1 knew in April. So that's our only recourse, Your
2 Honour.
3 We're dealing with an illiterate litigant
4 who lives hundreds of miles from Yellowknife, and
5 for him to go and try to contact the former
6 lawyer when he wasn't even in court himself, he
7 couldn't read or write the documents that were
8 served on him, that's a ridiculous standard to
9 put him through. So I'm seeking the order as
10 requested (indiscernible) two of them.
11 MR. BUCHANAN: Your Honour, I just have two
12 points, if I may.
13 THE COURT: Sure.
14 MR. BUCHANAN: First, going back to your
15 question regarding the ATIPP Act and -- I mean, I
16 guess this is a moot point, but I would just
17 point out that under subsection 43, it says that
18 we can only use the information for the purpose
19 for which it was collected.
20 And then regarding my friend's points
21 regarding what Maintenance Enforcement can do,
22 that's all laid out in the Maintenance
23 Enforcement Act. And we do have significant
24 powers with respect to the debtor such as
25 collecting information, garnishing wages,
26 reporting to CRA, et cetera. It's very limited
27 with respect to the creditor. In fact, it's
Official Court Reporters
20
1 almost silent on the creditor. And so we only
2 have the powers granted to us by legislation.
3 And so within the Act, there is no authority for
4 us to accept service of these documents and to
5 expend the costs.
6 THE COURT: But there's no specific
7 prohibition against it either, is there?
8 MR. BUCHANAN: No, there's no --
9 THE COURT: It's simply not addressed.
10 Correct?
11 MR. BUCHANAN: It's not addressed. But,
12 again, this is -- if Your Honour were to grant
13 the order, this is a cost that will come out of
14 the Administrator's pockets, it's not something
15 that we're funded for, and, in my submission, it
16 would open the floodgates, because I know that
17 Legal Aid office would actually use this order
18 quite --
19 THE COURT: Let me ask you this. If the
20 order was limited to attempting to contact the
21 respondent at her known address, what's the cost?
22 MR. BUCHANAN: It would be quite minimal.
23 But, again, my -- going to my first point, in my
24 submission, the respondent has not made
25 sufficient efforts to get the order in the first
26 place.
27 THE COURT: Thank you.
Official Court Reporters
21
1 With respect to Rule 38(1) and (2), I accept
2 the guidance of Justice Cooper finding that the
3 test is, in fact, quite strict, but that
4 strictness has to be interpreted in light of the
5 particular circumstances of the parties involved.
6 I am told by Mr. Large that the applicant is
7 an illiterate person who lives some three hours'
8 drive away from the nearest court worker and that
9 his ability to undertake a search for his former
10 spouse is limited. Given those concerns, I do
11 find that the strict test has been met.
12 With respect to the application of the ATIPP
13 provisions, as Mr. Large has commented and as I
14 have commented earlier, there is no anticipated
15 requirement for the Director to disclose any of
16 its private information or the private
17 information of the respondent and, as such, it is
18 my finding that the ATIPP provisions do not
19 apply. Even if they did apply, the sections that
20 have been referred to deal with disclosure, not
21 with use.
22 Mr. Buchanan has quite ably argued that this
23 sort of thing was not contemplated -- or is not
24 to be found in the legislation. But there are a
25 lot of gaps in legislation. There are empty
26 spaces into which the Court can interpret
27 reasonable responses to requests.
Official Court Reporters
22
1 It is also a troubling argument, in my
2 respectful view, that the only issue that
3 Maintenance Enforcement can consider is the
4 actual enforcement of its order, not the
5 variation of its order, not the reasonableness of
6 the order upon review, simply the strict
7 enforcement of it, and that does not persuade me.
8 It is no major undertaking for the Director
9 to attempt to contact the respondent at the
10 previous known address.
11 Substitutional service will not be effective
12 if the order requires the Director to do
13 something that they are not able to do, and I do
14 not propose to push the costs of skip tracers and
15 other more expensive search vehicles onto the
16 director.
17 So I will make the order granting
18 substitutional service with the limitation that
19 the substitutional service is limited to
20 attempting to contact the respondent at the
21 previous known address. I do not see any reason
22 why this could not be done between now and the
23 next family chambers. Is it one month from now
24 or what are we talking?
25 MR. LARGE: We meet every week, Your
26 Honour.
27 THE COURT: That is a bit soon. Different
Official Court Reporters
23
1 jurisdiction.
2 MR. LARGE: Perhaps, Your Honour -- I have
3 some holidays coming. Perhaps you could put it
4 over until November. (Indiscernible).
5 THE COURT: Suggest a date in November
6 then.
7 MR. LARGE: November the 5th, Your Honour.
8 THE COURT: Very good. Thank you. I will
9 put it over to November the 5th. At that time,
10 Mr. Buchanan, all we are looking for is an
11 indication of whether or not you were able to
12 contact the respondent. If not, we will have to
13 consider other options. Thank you.
14 MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, Your Honour. Just to
15 clarify, you're asking us to send a letter to --
16 or contact the applicant and then see whether
17 she's responsive at that address?
18 THE COURT: Yes.
19 MR. BUCHANAN: That's the extent of it?
20 THE COURT: That is the extent of it.
21 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay. And I'll report back on
22 the 5th.
23 THE COURT: Use whatever contact
24 information you have.
25 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay.
26 THE COURT: That is what I am asking you
27 to do. I do not want to be specifically limiting
Official Court Reporters
24
1 it to that address. The order should reflect
2 that it is using the information that you have at
3 your disposal to contact the Respondent, but I am
4 not requiring you to go beyond that.
5 MR. BUCHANAN: Okay.
6 THE COURT: Thank you.
7 MR. LARGE: That's fine, Your Honour.
8 I'll draft an order. I'll have a copy, a draft
9 copy, over to my friend so he can review it
10 before it comes to the clerk.
11 THE COURT: Thank you.
12 MR. LARGE: Thank you, Your Honour. Those
13 are all my matters today.
14 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Large.
15 (ADJOURNED TO NOVEMBER 5, 2015, AT 10 A.M.)
16 .................................
17
18
19 Certified Pursuant to Rule 723
of the Rules of Court
20
21
22
Jane Romanowich, CSR(A)
23 Court Reporter
24
25
26
27
Official Court Reporters
25