Rea v. Administrator, County of Simcoe Social Services Department

Rea v. Administrator, County of Simcoe Social Services Department Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2005-12-23 Docket numbers C43648 Judges McMurtry, Roy; Sharpe, Robert J.; Cronk, Eleanore Ann Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 20051223 DOCKET: C43648 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: LYNDA REA (Applicant (Appellant)) – and – ADMINISTRATOR, COUNTY OF SIMCOE SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT (Respondent (Respondent)) BEFORE: McMURTRY C.J.O., SHARPE and CRONK JJ.A. COUNSEL: Paul Dusome for the appellant Mary E. Vallee for the Administrator, County of Simcoe Social Services Department Rebecca Givens for the Minister of Community and Social Services HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY: December 16, 2005 On appeal from the order of Justices Edward F. C. Then, Lee K. Ferrier and Michael R. Meehan of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting in Divisional Court, dated September 17, 2004, dismissing an appeal from the decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal dated February 12, 2003. ENDORSEMENT [1] This appeal arises from the termination of the appellant’s income assistance for failure to provide required information regarding changes in her circumstances in accordance with s. 7 of the Ontario Works Act, S.O. 1997, c. 25, Sch. A (the “Act”) and s. 14 of O. Reg. 134/98 (the “Regulation”). [2] The appellant acknowledges that she failed to comply with s. 7 of the Act. However, she argues that, upon proper construction of ss. 14 and 35 of the Regulation, the result of this non-compliance should have been termination of her own income assistance but not that of her dependant daughter. We disagree. [3] Section 14(1) of the Regulation, on a plain reading, obliges the administrator to determine that a person is not eligible for income assistance if the person fails to provide requisite information to the administrator, including information with respect to new or changed circumstances. This section is mandatory. It provides for no exception on account of dependants included in an income assistance recipient’s benefit unit. [4] In contrast, s. 35 of the Regulation, which provides for the refusal, cancellation or reduction of income assistance and benefits, expressly states that if the recipient’s benefit unit includes a dependant, the assistance “shall be reduced by an amount equal to the budgetary requirements and benefits for the person” who fails to comply with a condition of eligibility for assistance under the Act or the Regulation other than a matter referred to in ss. 32, 33 or 34. [5] Section 14(1) does not contain similar language or otherwise contemplate the continuation of assistance for the dependant of a recipient who has been determined under s. 14(1) to be ineligible for income assistance. Nor is s. 35 stated to be applicable to s. 14(1) of the Regulation. [6] The appellant argues that ss. 14 and 35 are related because s. 14 of the Regulation provides for a determination of ineligibility for income assistance, while s. 35 provides for the possible consequences of such an ineligibility determination. We would reject this submission. [7] Section 14 is concerned with the provision of core information outlined in s. 7 of the Act, which is required to determine both initial and ongoing financial need for income assistance. Failure to supply this information frustrates the administrator’s ability to determine such financial need. The dependant’s exemption under s. 35(2) of the Regulation presupposes the provision of such information in order to permit the calculation of the assistance to be provided. Breach of ss. 7 and 14, therefore, precludes resort to the dependant’s exemption under s. 35(2). [8] The regulation must be interpreted in light of the Act. Section 7(3) of the Act provides: (3) No person is eligible for income assistance unless, …. (c) the person and the prescribed dependants provide the information and the verification of information required to determine eligibility including, (i) personal identification information, as prescribed, (ii) financial information, as prescribed, and (iii) any other prescribed information … [9] This requirement is central to the entire scheme of the statute and its purpose would be undermined if the appellant’s suggested interpretation of the Regulation were to be accepted. [10] Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed. This is not an appropriate case for an award of costs of the appeal. “Roy McMurtry C.J.O.” “Robert J. Sharpe J.A.” “E.A. Cronk J.A.”