Ontario -> FRO (Family Responsibility Office) -> Maximus -> Themis = BAD!

[KeyboardWarrior]

Blah blah blah it all came down to the lowest bidder.

Or the reverse may be true..check this out:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/oec/en/archive...lead_discl.asp

$24 000 in in-kind contributions to Martin, 2003.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by shrinkwrapped

And your post helps in what way? I'm sorry you're pissed too.

So you're being pissed allows you to treat others unkindly?

Wow...with all of the stars after your handle one would think being pissed was beyond any excuse to spew on a fellow member trying hard to learn.

I should have specified; i was in a pissy mood due to some real life situations.

in what post was I rood?

[shrinkwrapped]

Originally Posted by idknow

I should have specified; i was in a pissy mood due to some real life situations.

in what post was I rood?

Lol! you and I appear to be bumping heads which in my experience means you will turn into a good friend as we are similar! Go figure!

Never implied you were "rood".

Merely asked, how your post was helpful.

The skirt lifting reference didn't sound kind. It sounded offensive and non-helpful. Perhaps I mis-understood?

My premise is based on this is learning forum. Attempt/do couch replies in an informative manner. That's all.

Also, you're reply was premised with forethought of apologies which in my mind leads to the fact, that it may be offensive and apologized for... but being pissed is the justification.

In my experience, if you need to justify it, it's really not justifiable.

IOW's...it's no good reason.

Thanks for responding politely even though it's not pertinent to the thread.

Peace!

[idknow]

Originally Posted by shrinkwrapped

Lol! you and I appear to be bumping heads which in my experience means you will turn into a good friend as we are similar! Go figure!

Never implied you were "rood".

Merely asked, how your post was helpful.

The skirt lifting reference didn't sound kind. It sounded offensive and non-helpful. Perhaps I mis-understood?

My premise is based on this is learning forum. Attempt/do couch replies in an informative manner. That's all.

Also, you're reply was premised with forethought of apologies which in my mind leads to the fact, that it may be offensive and apologized for... but being pissed is the justification.

In my experience, if you need to justify it, it's really not justifiable.

IOW's...it's no good reason.

Thanks for responding politely even though it's not pertinent to the thread.

Peace!

the skirt ref was to Mel Gibson's Irish/scottish movie and the numerous funny take-off's on them that I've seen on tv

it's purely a visual reminder.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by idknow

the skirt ref was to Mel Gibson's Irish/scottish movie and the numerous funny take-off's on them that I've seen on tv

it's purely a visual reminder.

Let's continue this thread

[shrinkwrapped]

So, how is the current situation of the subject matter of the thread? Sorry, I've been so busy haven't had a chance to check in for a while. Has the situation been clarified in any way?

[shrinkwrapped]

Originally Posted by idknow

the skirt ref was to Mel Gibson's Irish/scottish movie and the numerous funny take-off's on them that I've seen on tv

it's purely a visual reminder.

Apologies, don't watch tv, nor many movies, so didn't get your slant. I now appreciate that there is humour in there somewhere...and some reference to media.

[shrinkwrapped]

Something sure as hell stinks about this!

Corporations (and how they apply) aside...have you ever looked up statute of FRO? I bet if you look in the mandate it has nothing to do with you.

Just Look at the words FRO. What a joke! How British! Like their anti-social legislation.

Seriously...can you post mandate...(it's the very beginning, before their blah-de-blah..usually begins with...this is an act to ...)

[IAMI]

Just a bit more about Maximus "winning" the contract:

MAXIMUS Wins $5.78 Million 'US' Family Responsibility Office Contract with the Province of Ontario
Business Wire, May 19, 2005
RESTON, Va. -- MAXIMUS (NYSE:MMS), through its wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary THEMIS, has been selected by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, Family Responsibility Office in the Province of Ontario, Canada, to provide a new integrated case management solution for their maintenance enforcement program to enforce child and spousal support payments, which have been ordered through the courts. This four-year contract is valued at $7.25 million (Canadian)/$5.78 million (US). The case management solution's maintenance and support component may be extended up to an additional two years.
Ontario has the largest single maintenance enforcement program in Canada, with more than 180,000 cases. The new application to be customized from British Columbia's Family Maintenance Enforcement Program (FMEP) application, will greatly improve productivity and customer service thereby resulting in significant cost savings for Ontario. With the addition of this contract, more than half of FMEP cases in Canada will be managed using software created by THEMIS.
MAXIMUS, through its British Columbia subsidiaries, also has significant projects in British Columbia: the FMEP Project and the Health Benefits Operations Project. In January 2004, British Columbia extended THEMIS's contract to provide FMEP services through March 2008, which includes enrollment, monitoring and enforcement of filed orders, account management, case management, and client communications. THEMIS has been providing these FMEP services in British Columbia since June 1988. Additionally, in November 2004, British Columbia finalized a $268 million contract with the Company to provide health benefit operations administrative services. The Company launched full operation of this program in April 2005.
Lynn Davenport, CEO of MAXIMUS, commented, "This new contract reinforces our expansion in Canada and complements our current projects in British Columbia. We are excited to work in partnership with the Province of Ontario on this important initiative."

MAXIMUS is one of America's leading government services companies providing consulting, systems, and outsourcing services. The Company has approximately 5,100 employees located in more than 280 offices in the United States, Canada, England, and Australia. In 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, MAXIMUS was selected by Forbes Magazine as one of the Best 200 Small Companies in America for that year. MAXIMUS was selected by Business Week Magazine as one of the 100 Best Hot Growth Small Companies in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. Additionally, MAXIMUS is included in the Russell 2000 Index and the S&P SmallCap 600 Index.


Cheers,
IAMI

[IAMI]

Part I
Interpretation

Interpretation

Definitions

1. (1) In this Act,

“Director” means the Director of the Family Responsibility Office; (“directeur”)

“income source” means an individual, corporation or other entity that owes or makes any payment, whether periodically or in a lump sum, to or on behalf of a payor of,

(a) wages, wage supplements or salary, or draws or advances on them,

(b) a commission, bonus, piece-work allowance or similar payment,

(c) a payment made under a contract for service,

(d) a benefit under an accident, disability or sickness plan,

(e) a disability, retirement or other pension,

(f) an annuity,

(g) vacation pay, termination pay and severance pay,

(h) an employee loan,

(i) a shareholder loan or dividends on shares, if the corporation that issued the shares is effectively controlled by the payor or the payor and the payor’s parent, spouse, child or other relative or a body corporate which the payor and his or her parent, spouse, child or other relative effectively control, directly or indirectly,

(j) refunds under the Income Tax Act (Canada),

(k) lump sum payments under the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act (Canada),

(l) income of a type described in the regulations; (“source de revenu”)

“payor” means a person who is required to pay support under a support order; (“payeur”)

“provisional order” means an order that has no effect until it is confirmed by another court and includes orders made under subsection 18 (2) of the Divorce Act (Canada), sections 7 and 30 of the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002 and section 44 of the Family Law Act; (“ordonnance conditionnelle”)

“recipient” means a person entitled to support under a support order or the parent, other than the payor, of a child entitled to support under a support order; (“bénéficiaire”)

“reciprocating jurisdiction” has the same meaning as in the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002; (“autorité pratiquant la réciprocité”)

“regulations” means the regulations made under this Act; (“règlements”)

“spouse” means,

(a) a spouse as defined in section 1 of the Family Law Act, or

(b) either of two persons who live together in a conjugal relationship outside marriage; (“conjoint”)

“support deduction order” means a support deduction order made or deemed to have been made under this Act or its predecessor; (“ordonnance de retenue des aliments”)

“support order” means a provision in an order made in or outside Ontario and enforceable in Ontario for the payment of money as support or maintenance, and includes a provision for,

(a) the payment of an amount periodically, whether annually or otherwise and whether for an indefinite or limited period, or until the happening of a specified event,

(b) a lump sum to be paid or held in trust,

(c) payment of support or maintenance in respect of a period before the date of the order,

(d) payment to an agency of an amount in reimbursement for a benefit or assistance provided to a party under a statute, including a benefit or assistance provided before the date of the order,

(e) payment of expenses in respect of a child’s prenatal care and birth,

(e.1) payment of expenses in respect of DNA testing to establish parentage,

(f) the irrevocable designation, by a spouse who has a policy of life insurance or an interest in a benefit plan, of the other spouse or a child as the beneficiary, or

(g) interest or the payment of legal fees or other expenses arising in relation to support or maintenance,

and includes such a provision in a domestic contract or paternity agreement that is enforceable under section 35 of the Family Law Act. (“ordonnance alimentaire”) 1996, c. 31, s. 1 (1); 1999, c. 6, s. 26; 2002, c. 13, s. 57 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 28; 2005, c. 16, s. 1.

Interpretation – income source

(2) An individual, corporation or other entity continues to be an income source despite temporary interruptions in the payments owed to a payor. 1996, c. 31, s. 1 (2).

Same – related orders

(3) A support deduction order is related to the support order on which it is based and a support order is related to the support deduction order that is based on it. 1996, c. 31, s. 1 (3).