The applicant brought a motion seeking an order preventing the Family Responsibility Office from suspending his driver’s licence and garnishing his employment insurance benefits in relation to outstanding child support obligations.
He argued that he did not understand the terms of a previously consented refraining order requiring ongoing support payments and arrears payments.
The court held that Rule 25(19)(b) did not apply because the applicant was not alleging a mistake in the order, but rather misunderstanding of its terms.
The court further found no material change in circumstances under s. 35(10) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996 to justify varying the refraining order.
The motion was dismissed.
