Impact of Adding Revenue Canada Databases Under FOAEA—Part 1 Tracing For Locating Persons
6.0 CASE CHARACTERISTICS
6.1 Enrollments and Multiple Files
Eight percent (25/315) of the sample had been enrolled in FMEP twice, while one recipient had been enrolled three or more times. The dates of the most recent enrolments for the sample are described in Table 8.
|Year of most recent enrollment||Number||%|
|1992 or previously||52||17%|
Thirteen percent (41/315) of the payors were involved in multiple files; that is, they were involved in payments to other recipients. However, an analysis of these other files was not undertaken.
6.2.1 Date of Issuance and Term
Thirty-one percent (98/315) of the maintenance orders were issued in 1991 or previously (see Table 9).
|Date of order||Number||%|
|1991 or previously||98||31%|
The term of the maintenance order was documented on only 120 cases (Table 10). In half of the cases, the term ranged from 16 to 20 years. The average term was 14 years.
|Term of Maintenance Order|| Number
Almost three quarters of the Maintenance Orders were issued at the Family Court level and in 83 percent of the cases it was a British Columbia order.
In 95 percent (300/315) of cases, the type of order was for the child only, while in four percent (12/315) it was for the spouse. In two cases (less than 1 percent) it was for both child and spouse; in the other case, the type of order was not recorded.
Table 12 describes the number of children attached to the Maintenance Orders.
|Number of children on Maintenance Order|| Totals
|1 child on order||152||50%|
|2 children on order||118||39%|
|3 children on order||28||9%|
|4 children on order||5||2%|
The data recorded on the FMEP database indicated that in 68 percent of the cases, both the payor and recipient were living in the province. Twenty-five percent of cases were described as RDI (REMO: payor living in).
|Case group designation||Number of cases||%|
|RDI (REMO: payor living in B.C.)||78||25%|
|RDO (REMO: payor living out of province)||13||4%|
|VOL (Both recipient and payor living in province)||215||68%|
|DEEM (older court designation: payor and recipient live in province)||8||3%|
|No data recorded||1||0%|
The most frequently recorded jurisdiction for these 13 RDO (REMO: payor out) cases was Alberta (eight), followed by Ontario (four) and one unknown.
The type of payment required under the Maintenance Order was not always recorded on FMEP records, particularly if the payor owed only arrears. Data indicated that 83 percent (262/315) of the payors were required to make periodic maintenance payments. The majority (89 percent or 232/260) of these payments were stipulated as monthly payments.
The amount of arrears owed by payors ranged from zero to $211,291 (see Table 14). The average amount owing was $16,741.
|Amount owing||Number of payors||%|
|$160,000 or more||1||0%|
Eighty-eight percent (277/315) of payors had made some level of maintenance payments, while 12 percent (38/315) had not. The average amount paid by payors was $8,040; the highest amount was $112,835.
|Amounts||Number of payors||%|
Of the 277 payors who had made maintenance payments at least once in the past, the majority (61 percent or 168/277) had made relatively recent payments. However, 14 percent had made no payments for two or more years.
|Elapse time since last maintenance payment|| Number
|Under 6 months||168||61%|
|From 6 months to under 1 year||35||13%|
|From 1 year to under 2 years||35||13%|
|From 2 years to under 3 years||14||5%|
|From 3 years to under 4 years||8||3%|
|From 4 years to under 5 years||8||3%|
|From 5 years to under 6 years||3||1%|
|6 years or over||6||2%|
Because length of time since last payment is not necessarily an indication of the regularity of maintenance payments, an attempt was made to assess the overall regularity of payments in the past.
On the basis of this assessment, only six percent of those who had made payments had made regular payments, or payments that closely matched maintenance order requirements. Over 70 percent had made occasional, very occasional or no payments.
|Frequency of payments||Number||%|
|Very occasional (several times over a period of years)||101||32%|
|Occasional (2 to 5 times over a 12‑month period)||95||30%|
|Somewhat regular (6 times over a 12‑month period)||63||20%|
|Regular (match or close to requirements)||18||6%|
Data was collected on the type of last payment in order to determine whether payments were voluntary or derived from deductions. Data fields represented broad categories, however, and only the
"federal payments" category clearly indicated source (involuntary federal payment deductions).
|Type of payment||Number||%|
|Money order (payor/attachees money orders, bank drafts, bank orders, certified cheques made payable to the recipient)||24||9%|
|Post-dated cheque (any payment with a date in future)||5||2%|
|Transfer funds on behalf of recipient (received from large companies or reciprocating jurisdictions, made payable to the program and deposited into trust accounts)||19||7%|
|Federal payments (Federal Intercept Funds)||115||41%|
|Direct payment (payment made directly to recipient through regional office or reciprocating jurisdiction)||25||9%|
Table 18 indicates that 41 percent of the last payments made by payors were from a federal source.
An attempt was also made to assess the entire history of payments in terms of whether payments were primarily voluntary or deducted. Table 19 provides an approximate description of payors' payment histories. In most cases, payments were a combination of voluntary and deducted payments
|Type of payment||Number||%|
|Payments primarily voluntary||42||15%|
|Payments primarily deducted||70||25%|
|Combination voluntary and deducted||154||56%|
- Date modified: