The Honourable Michael D. Harris
Premier of Ontario
720 Bay Street, 11th Floor
Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2K1
March 26, 1997

(Via Facsimile)

Dear Premier

I am writing to note my concerns on the passing of The Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, targeting "Deadbeat Parents" or what is politically incorrect to state "Deadbeat Dads".

In the outset, I must note that I am a conservative and will continue to be one. I have voted for you and will vote for you again if you were to hold elections today.

This legislation will marginalize as yet one more slice off the lower income class. The measures are not constitutional, and the government will be faced with a series of constitutional challenges, and perhaps class action proceedings.

I understand that you have no other option but to have confidence in the fairness of the judicial system. I do not share this confidence, because it has been taken over by special interest agendas, despite appearances.

Regrettably, the judicial system manufactures Deadbeat Dads, in a way that any one outside the system cannot comprehend. It is a body whose self-governing dictates result in child support awards which are beyond any average Ontarian's financial means to challenge, lest they be ruined.

The judicial manufacturing of Deadbeat Dads is a very simple process.

Contrary to enabling legislation, but based on some precedent cases of the lower courts, Child Support is based not on real income but on attributed/virtual income, which is beyond the dad's means to make. In addition, if the children live with the father full time, no account is given for such care. Thus the dad, as he cannot pay what he does not have, and never being recognized for his daily care of his children finds himself in the predicament of mounting arrears. Such attributed arrears amount to the manufacturing of The Deadbeat Dad who has now became a judicial product, whose numbers are growing given also the rise in unemployment over the past five years.

Without means for representation, and since legal aid does not fund default proceedings, the deadbeat dad now is treated as a criminal and ends up in jail. The accused's constitutional rights have been compromised and the issue becomes a human rights issue, if only the funds are there to defend them. But funds there are not. Your bureaucracy will confirm many such cases.

Even the police force is re-engineering its culture at a faster pace than the administrators of the judicial system have accomplished for their culture. Evidence, the act in question.

The Attorney General's department conveniently paints a picture for reform enhancing its own bureaucracy, and those of the legal and the judicial industries, while providing you with the enticing "scape goat argument" of cost-reduction (saving of welfare rolls from increased enforcement proceeds) when in fact it masks a silent extreme agenda which has now moved from the law schools into the Government and the judicial system throughout the country.

The younger generation having lived through systemic battering against fathers, not to mention the other issues, are not as tolerant and forgiving for their losses, as you and I may be, particularly when it comes to the loss of their children, not to mention the family.

No, this is not an exaggeration. The halting of Bill C-41 and its last minute changes, is the beginning of the "new re-action" and the straw that made the imbalance too evident.

The new enforcement measures are in the hands of a system that will cause more collective damage to the province than its purported good. The trade-off between stronger enforcement for lower welfare support is a myth. This legislation is about to marginalize a new, innocent and hard working citizen.

I would advise that in order to ameliorate the prospective damage:

a) No one should be brought to trial without representation when one's constitutional rights are about to be compromised. That is, default proceedings with the prospect of jail sentences must be heard with assigned counsel to the payor, or - more accurately - the accused.

The system cannot pretend to exact criminal sanctions in a civil matter and avoid providing due legal protection to the underprivileged.

A petty thief has such legal representation right, but a father who cannot pay (what he does not have) with ensuing compromise of his liberties - does not.

b) As a matter of policy, the Director of the Support Arrears Enforcement Act, must enforce arrears based on evidenced actual income, and not assumed incomes, suspicion, and conjecture of the existence of income or assets, that is hidden or might exist.

Once income has been attributed in determining child support, the onus on the defendant to prove that income does not exist during the enforcement proceedings, amount to proving to a three year old that Santa Claus is not real.

Furthermore when arrears are attributed and not real, the statutory enforcement presumption of ability to pay, is in conflict with the constitutional presumption of innocence and with the provisions of the Divorce Act to pay based on real means. True, enforcement lawyers will argue that the presumption of innocence is part of criminal and not civil proceedings, however they fail to account for the criminal sanctions of incarceration to what they conveniently classify as a civil matter. I am confident this law will likely be stricken down by the Supreme Court, if one has the means to challenge it.

c) Changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure should be reviewed from the Cabinet following submissions from the Ombudsman's or other office or organization, representing the citizen's civil liberties. In fact, I would prefer to see such changes reviewed by the Legislative Assembly through the proper new bill hearings.

Even when the Cabinet is presented with resolutions without consideration of opposing views from groups other than those who are served from such resolutions (Such as the Law Society and the Attorney General's department), it is impossible for you as Premier to have a balanced review of all the facts before you for a just decision.

Civil liberties for the average person who has no financial means to challenge the judicial system through the appeals process is fundamental. When such civil liberties are compromised from changes to the due process of law which convenience special interests without challenge and debate, they became the brewing grounds for discord, loss of productive energy and may cause pain that can challenge the system's balance. d) The Ontario Government must promote the review and reform of the Divorce Act by the Federal Government. The child custody, support and enforcement legislation at the Federal and Provincial Levels is anachronistic and defies the very essence of the human condition, which the Canadian Charter of Rights and international instruments affirm, and to which Canada is signatory.

The judicial system is incapable of dealing with family matters. Other civilized, group of seven, countries recognized that and did take it out of the courts, despite the judicial industry's objections.

I am sure you would agree with me that democracy must not be a function of one's disposable income. After all, economic growth depends on investment risk taken by those able to invest, and fair social, judicial and economic rules of the game to allow fair participation, compliance and merited rewards from all others.
With best regards

George Pan Hadjiantoniou