Focus On


Tuesday, July 09, 2019 @ 8:27 AM  

Lexis Advance® Quicklaw®
Motion by the applicant for leave to appeal a decision of the Social Services Appeal Board. The applicant received income assistance for a disability. She had received employment income from part-time employment that was not deducted from her income assistance payments pursuant to work incentive provisions provided for in the Assistance Regulation. In 2015, the applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and while unable to work, received an income replacement indemnity from Manitoba Public Insurance. The Board concluded the indemnity did not constitute employment earnings under the work incentive provisions and that the amount of the indemnity payments was properly deducted from the applicant’s monthly income assistance.

HELD: Motion dismissed. The standard of review that would be applied on the appeal was reasonableness. The applicant’s appeal involved the interplay between legislation and therefore raised a question of law. The Board understood the principles of statutory interpretation and considered the purpose of the legislation. It conducted a contextual analysis by examining the nature of the indemnity payments and how they were funded. Having found no ambiguity in the legislation, there was no need for the Board to consider Charter values as an interpretive aid. There was no arguable case of substance that the Board’s interpretation of its legislation did not fall within a reasonable range of possible outcomes or interpretations. Refusing leave would not create an injustice.

Boles v. Manitoba (Social Services Appeal Board, Director, River East/Transcona), [2019] M.J. No. 160, Manitoba Court of Appeal, J. leMaistre J.A., June 6, 2019. Digest No. TLD-July82019004