,.

,
'S
I .
,.
)
)
File No. CI 12 01 -r6fi0
BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN'S BENCH
WINNIPEG CENTRE
EMMA LYNN MIYAI, KAmEN WILLIAM REIMER
and CALEB TIMOTHY MIYAI , by their
Litigation Guardian, CHANTEL KAYLA MIYAI ,
Plaintiffs,
- and-
THE DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME ASSISTANCE,
THE DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES AND HOUSING and THE
.GOVERNMENT OF MANITOBA,
Defendants.
"Brought under the The Class Proceedings Act, C.C.S.M 2002, c 130"
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
MERCHANT LAW GROUP
S. NORMAN ROSENBAUM
Barrister and Solicitor
501-386 Broadway
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3C 3R8
Telephone: (204) 982-0800
Facsimile: (204) 982-0771
BETWEEN:
, ) \.'
"
THE QUEEN'S BENCH
WINNIPEG CENTRE
) ,
File No. CI 12 01
EMMA LYNN MIYAI, KAIDEN WILLIAM REIMER
and CALEB TIMOTHY MIYAI , by their
Litigation Guardian, CHANTEL KAYLA MIYAI ,
Plaintiffs,
- and-
THE DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME ASSISTANCE,
THE DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES AND HOUSING and THE
GOVERNMENT OF MANITOBA,
Defendants.
"Brought under the The Class Proceedings Act, C. C.S.M 2002, c 130"
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
TO THE DEFENDANTS:
A LEGAL PROCEEDING has been commenced against you by the Plaintiff. The claim
made against you is set out in the following pages.
IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or a Manitoba lawyer acting for
you must prepare a Statement ofDefence in Form 18A prescribed by the Queen's Bench rules,
serve it on the Plaintiff's lawyer or, where the Plaintiffdoes not have a lawyer, serve it on the
Plaintiff, and file it in the co,Urt, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this Statement of Claim is
served on you, if you are served in Manitoba.
If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of
Amedca, the period for serving and filing your Statement of Defence is forty days. If you are
served outside Canada and the United States ofAmerica, the period is sixty days.
F YOU FAIL TO DEFENDiTHIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST
YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU.
,2012
~ ) .)
- 2 -
IF YOU PAY THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM, and $300.00 for costs, within the time for
serving and filing your State1llent of Defence, you may move to have this proceeding dismissed
by the court. If you believelthe amount claimed for costs is excessive, you may pay the
plaintiff's claim and $300.00 for costs and have the costs assessed by the court.
KJ. BUDDICK
Issued by: ti11:pmy REGISTRAR
Deput)(JOOaiaW Q U E E ~ ' S BENCH
Main Floor FORMAJ.'lII0BA
408 Ydrk Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3COP9
TO THE DEFENDANTS:
THE DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME ASSISTANCE
c/o
Manitoba Justice
Civil Legal Services
730-405 Broadway, Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3C 3L6
(Attention: Glenn McFetridge, Barrister and Solicitor)
THE DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES AND HOUSING OF MANITOBA
clo Manitoba Justice
Civil Legal Services
730-405 Broadway, Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3C 3L6.
(Attention: Glenn McFetridge, Barrister and Solicitor)
and
THE GOVERNMENT OF MANITOBA
by its solicitors
Manitoba Justice
Civil Legal Services
730-405 Broadway, Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3C 3L6
) J
1. THE PLAINTIFFS aLAIM:
- 3 -
CLAIM
\) ,
a) Special damages in an amount to be determined by this Court;
b) General Damages;
c) A Declaration that the Defendants seek wrongfully to convert child support monies
being the right and entitlement of the Infant Plaintiffs herein, and have wrongfully converted
child support monies of the other infant members of the Class, being the right and entitlement of
the other infant members ofthe class;
d) A Declaration that the Defendants seek unjustly to enrich themselves at the
expense of the Infant Plaintiffs and have wrongfully enriched themselves at the expense ofthe
other infant members of the Class, by seeking to deprive the Infant Plaintiffs, and depriving
the other infant members of the Class, of the child support monies to which the said Infant
Plaintiffs and the other infant members ofthe Class are entitled;
e) A Declaration that the assignment of child support monies in favour of the Defendants
are void as being in breach ofthe Infant Plaintiffs' and other infant members' ofthe Class right
and entitlement to child support monies;
f) Damages for U1)just enrichment;
g) Damages for conversion;
h) An order that all monies sought unjustly to be enriched to the Defendants at the
expense ofthe Infant Plaintiffs from said child support monies, and unjustly enriched to the
Defendants at the expense ofthe other infant members of the Class, and wrongfully converted
of their child support monies, are to be paid and reimbursed to the Infant Plaintiffs and other
infant class members ofthe ,class as they attain the age ofmajority;
i) An order that all such monies are and are to be impressed with a trust and to be held in
trust during the Infant Plaintiffs' and other infant class members' minority, thereafter to be
paid directly to them;
j) Damages, restitution and return of all funds wrongfully collected and sought
wrongfully to be collected by Defendants from the Infant Plaintiffs' child support and the child
support of the other infant rpembers of the Class;
k) A Declaration that the Infant Plaintiffs' and the other infant members' of the Class
Charter rights, namely their rights under sections 7, and 15 of the Charter have been
infringed, denied and/or breached by the Defendants and that the Infant Plaintiffs and the other
infant members ofthe Class are entitled to remedy by way of damages pursuant to section 24 (1)
of The Charter;
I) Damages pursuant to section 24m of The Charter
m) Pre-Judgment Interest;
n) A Declaration that the Defendants have not properly invested the infant members' of
the Class child support monies wrongfully converted and appropriated by the Defendants, and
that the infant members of the Class are entitled to interest foregone, on a quantum meruit basis;
0) Costs of this action;
p) Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.
:) v )
-4-
/) /)
2. The Plaintiff, CHANTEL KAYLA MlYAl (hereinafter "the Adult Plaintiff") is the
natural mother of the Infant Plaintiffs herein, EMMA LYNN MIYAI. born July 12, 2006,
KAIDEN WILLIAM REIMER , born October 15, 2009 and CALEB TIMOTHY MIYAI, born
August 20, 2011 (hereinafter "the Infant Plaintiffs"). The Infant Plaintiffs reside with the Adult
Plaintiff at the Town of Gimli, in the Province of Manitoba , in her care and control. The Adult
Plaintiff is the de facto parent of the Infant Plaintiffs.
!
3. The Adult Plaintiff sues;,on the Infant Plaintiffs' behalf, as litigation guardian ofthe Infant
Plaintiffs. She sues in addition on behalf of all infant members of the Class.
4. The Adult Plaintiff is in receipt of income assistance, commonly known as welfare or social
assistance (and hereinafter collectively described as "Social Assistance"). Said Social Assistance
is provided by the Defendant GOVERNMENT OF MANITOBA through the Defendant
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES AND HOUSING OF MANITOBA (hereinafter "the
Defendant Department"). The Defendant Department is under the control and direction of the
Defendant GOVERNMENT OF MANITOBA. The Defendant DIRECTOR OF
EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME ASSISTANCE (hereinafter "the Defendant Director") is the
Director of The Defendant Department. At all material times, the Defendants, the Defendant
Department and the Defendant Director have acted as agents of the Defendant Government of
Manitoba as the executive authorities of the Defendant Government of Manitoba , and to collect
child support monies as described herein, to the benefit ofthe Defendant Government of
Manitoba.
6. The Adult Plaintiff on behalf ofthe Infant Plaintiffs seeks child support monies (hereinafter
"child support monies" ) frolll the Infant Plaintiffs' father.
7. Said child support monies are the right and entitlement of the Infant Plaintiffs. Child support
monies payable on behalf oj) children resident in Manitoba, whether pursuant to filiation
agreements, child support orders, 'separation orders, separation agreements, divorce decrees or
similar mechanisms defining financial support of infant children, are the right and entitlement of
said children, including the Infant Plaintiffs and other infant child members of the Class.
8. Notwithstanding that said child support monies are the right and entitlement ofthe Infant
Plaintiffs and other respective infant members of the Class, the Defendant Department and the
Defendant Director, at the direction of the Defendant Government of Manitoba, treat said child
support monies as income rtlspectively ofthe Adult Plaintiff and the other custodial parents of
infant members of the Class;
9. The Adult Plaintiff, as required by the Defendant Department, on behalf of the Defendant
Director, and as agent for the Defendant Director and the Defendant Government of Manitoba ,
"
J
)
- 5-
)
executed an assignment ofthe Infant Plaintiffs' child support monies, in favour of the Defendant
Government of Manitoba, (h,ereinafter referred to as "the Assignment), By operation of said
Assignment and other such ~ s s i g n m e n t s executed by custodial parents aforementioned in favour
of the Defendants and in part,icular the Defendant Government of Manitoba, the child support
monies are provided to the benefit of the Defendants, and in particular the Defendant
Govemment of Manitoba to ,its general revenues.
10, Said Assignment and the other such other assignments, are without the consent of the
Infant Plaintiffs, and the said other infant child members ofthe Class, all of whom, being under
the age ofmajority, are incilpable of providing consent.
11. By treating the Infant Plilintiffs' child support monies, and the child suppo11 of the other
infant child members' of the Class, to which the Infant Plaintiffs and the other infant child
members of the class are respectively entitled, as their custodial parent's income, and
assignable to the Defendants, the Defendants, and in particular to the Defendant Government of
Manitoba, by itself and its agents, the other Defendants, converts the child support monies,
unjustly enriching themselv\)s. The Defendants and in particular the Defendant Government of
Manitoba, to whose general;revenues the child support monies are provided, enrich themselves,
the Infant Plaintiffs and other infant members of the Class are deprived, without juridical reason.
'.
12. The Defendants purport, to treat the child support monies as income of the custodial parent,
when it is the right and entitiement of the child. The Defendants purport to treat the child support
monies as assignable, notwithstanding they are the the right and entitlement the Infant Plaintiffs
and other members of the infant Class, and notwithstanding said children are incapable of
providing consent.
13. The Defendants, in exercising the assignment transfers the child support monies from the
infant children subject to the assignments, to the Defendants' benefit, and in particular the
Defendant Government ofManitoba's general revenues. Said assignments are so exercised by
the Defendants, as agents of one another and as agents of the Defendant Government of
Manitoba, whether pursuant to filiation agreements, child support orders, separation orders,
separation agreements, divorce decrees or similar mechanisms defining financial support of infant
children,
14. The said exercise of said. assignments, including the aforementioned Assignment of the Infant
Plaintiffs child support mOI)ies, constitute conversion by the Defendants of the Infant Plaintiffs'
and other infant members' of the Class, child support monies, and seizure and confiscation
thereof, being a seizure and ,confiscation of these children's assets and material security, without
consent of the infant children.

..'
:)
- 6 -
)
)
!
15. These children's custoqial parents are prevented ,by reason of the Defendants' exercise of
such assignments, from improving their children's condition and security.
16. Said assignments are without consent of the infant children, who are incapable of providing
consent. The Defendants benefited and enriched by the transfer of the child support monies
to themselves, and in partic&lar the Defendant Government of Manitoba's general revenues, and
the infant children are deprived of said monies to which they have right and entitlement. Said
enrichment is unjust and without juristic reason.
17. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing the Defendants by their actions
aforementioned, and in particular the exercise of the assignments, infringe the Infant Plaintiffs'
rights and the rights of other infant members ofthe Class, pursuant to The Charter ofRights and
Freedoms being Part I ofThe Constitution Act, 1982 (hereinafter "The Charter '') and in
particular their rights pursuant to the following sections of The Charter:
i) Section 7 : the Infant Plaintiffs' rights to security of the person and not to be deprived thereof
except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. In particular, the life chances and
future security of Infant Plaintiffs' and other infant members of the Class are thereby
compromised, by the Defendants' exercise ofthe assignments and seizure of the children's
monies. The effect of the as#gnment(s) deprives the Infant Plaintiffs and infant members of the
class of economic security future autonomy, with negative effects upon their life chances and
prospects for personal material security;
ii) Section 8: the Infant PlaiQtiffs' rights to be secure from unreasonable seizure. In particular, the
monetaly assets of the Infant Plaintiffs and other members ofthe infant Class are seized by the
Defendants' exercise oftheilssignments.said Assignment(s) constitute an un unreasonable seizure
by the Defendants of rightfully entitled to in circumstances where no consent has been
provided by these children.
iii) Section 15: the Infant Plaintiffs' rights to equal treatment and equal benefit of the law without
discrimination and in particular without discrimination because of age, by reason of their not
consenting to the seizure oftheir child support monies, by reason oftheir vulnerable age and
inability to provide consent to the assignments and exercise thereof. The said assignments
discriminate against the Infant Plaintiffs and other members of the infant Class, in depriving them
of the child support monies in circumstances of age and inability to provide consent, and treating
their monetmy assets as income of their parent.

,
- 7-
.. )
I)
18. In addition to damages for the torts committed against the Infant Plaintiffs as set forth herein,
the Adult Plaintiffs on behalf ofthe Infant Plaintiffs and other members of the infant Class, seeks
remedy by way of damages for the various aforementioned breaches and infringements of the
Infant Plaintiffs' and other infants' Charter rights. The Adult Plaintiff pleads and relies upon
Section 24(1) of The Charter by way of applying to this Honourable Court for said remedy in
damages for the breaches a n ~ infringements ofthe Infant Plaintiffs and other infants' Charter
rights as this Honourable C ~ l U r t considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
19. The Adult Plaintiff brirjgs this action on behalf of the Infant Plaintiffs and all infant children
within the Province of Manitoba or elsewhere, who are similarly situate to the Infant Plaintiffs by
reason oftheir child support monies being subject to assignments and whereby the Defendants
,
convert said infant children's child support monies and unjustly enrich themselves at these
children's expense. The Adl,ilt Plaintiff pleads and relies upon The Class Proceedings Act,
C. C.S.M. 2002, c 130 and afnendments thereto.
20 . The Adult Plaintiff proposes that Trial in this action take place in the City of Winnipeg, in the
Province ofManitoba.
21. AND THE ADULT J;'LAINTIFF , the Litigation Guardian on behalf ofthe Infant
Plaintiffs, and other infant members of the Class, claims as against the Defendants as set forth in
Paragraph I above.
MERCHANT LAW GROUP
S. Norman Rosenbaum
Barrister & Solicitor
501 - 386 Broadway
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3C3R8
Telephone: (204) 982-0800
Facsimile: (204) 982-0771
,2012
i
j