Canada has recipical agreements with certain states in the USA concerning Child Maintainence Enforcement. The world is shrinking for deadbeat dads. I do not think that Canada would take issue with enforcing USA orders in return.
Yes if they do so using a US court.
If you are working for a U.S. company then the wage garnishment can in some cases be enforced.
The Canadian salary for a beautician is on average 26,460 US dollars per year. This is equivalent to an hourly wage of 10.85 US dollars.
No. Nor can they in any other US state.
he will stay American citizen....he has to apply to become a Canadian citizen or his wife has to apply for him and will have to tell the court that she has married him
Not arbitrarily, the creditor would need to retain a US attorney/collection law firm to proceed with a civil suit against the debtor. Or win a judgment in a Canadian court and then try to have it recorded as a valid judgment in order to attach any income or property belonging to the debtor. If the debtor is a Canadian citizen, a judgment granted in Canada could be executed against any property in Canada that is owned by the debtor even if that person is physically outside of the court's jurisdiction.
Yes- by cour order. A US judgment can be taken into a Canadian court and "domesticated" that is it would become legal under Canadian law- allowing creditors to seize Canadian assets. If you file BK, the BK court can force you to liquidate any Canadian assets by not allowing you a debt discharge if you refuse to do so- the BK would also probably dismiss youe BK petition if you do not co-operate in liquidating your assets.
noo
In the US, the 1953 minimum wage was $0.75.
In Adkins v. Children's Hospital, (1923), the Supreme Court held that minimum wage laws artificially restricted the bargaining rights of the corporation, and raised the possibility that Congress could pair minimum wage laws with maximum wage laws, thereby removing the right of employees and employers to freely negotiated work contracts, as established in Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905).Adkins was overturned by the decision in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 US 379 (1937), when the Supreme Court decided the government had an interest in protecting the rights of vulnerable populations and their ability to support themselves.Case Citation:Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 US 525 (1923)
Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 US 525 (1923)The Supreme Court held that minimum wage laws artificially restricted the bargaining rights of the corporation, and raised the possibility that Congress could pair minimum wage laws with maximum wage laws, thereby removing the right of employees and employers to freely negotiated work contracts, as established in Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905).Adkins was overturned by the decision in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 US 379 (1937), when the Supreme Court decided the government had an interest in protecting the rights of vulnerable populations and their ability to support themselves.For more information see Related Questions, below.
Adkins v. Children's Hospital of DC, 261 US 525 (1923)The Supreme Court held that minimum wage laws artificially restricted the bargaining rights of the corporation, and raised the possibility that Congress could pair minimum wage laws with maximum wage laws, thereby removing the right of employees and employers to freely negotiated work contracts, as established in Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905).Adkins was overturned by the decision in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 US 379 (1937), when the Supreme Court decided the government had an interest in protecting the rights of vulnerable populations and their ability to support themselves.For more information see Related Questions, below.