Photo by Whitehorse Star
Man is not entitled to review of SARC decision, judge rules
A Yukon Supreme Court justice has dismissed the appeal of a Whitehorse man asking for a review of a Social Assistance Review Committee (SARC) decision.
A Yukon Supreme Court justice has dismissed the appeal of a Whitehorse man asking for a review of a Social Assistance Review Committee (SARC) decision.
Deputy justice Gregory Mulligan released his six-page written decision on June 17, dismissing Paul James Major’s appeal.
The committee decision under appeal was made last March 4. It decided that Major would be compensated for $1,270 in household allowance during the period of 2010 to 2016.
Major appealed, as he wanted his maximum benefit. This is $500 per year, which totals to $3,500.
Mulligan referenced that Major was asking for court orders that are beyond the scope of a judicial review. An example of this is the demand for an injunction and compensatory damages.
That said, Major’s request for the full amount of the benefit was a “live issue”.
Mulligan went over the history of the case before getting to his reasons.
The committee heard this matter back in June 2018. It determined that Major had not given enough proof of his eligibility for full benefits.
That decision was appealed to the Supreme Court. That appeal resulted in an order on Oct. 25, 2018, by Deputy Justice John Menzies.
Menzies, then, determined that retroactive disbursals are somewhat allowed and that Major was not properly informed of the benefit.
The case was ordered back to the committee. Major had to meet with the director on Nov. 23, 2018 and provide proof of his finances.
The committee met with Major again last March 4 and offered him the $1,270.
It reasoned that Major had incurred some household expenses, despite him living in an already furnished apartment during the timeline in question.
Mulligan now moved to his reasons.
He pointed out that the Supreme Court of Canada made a clear definition of judicial review. The court stated:
“Judicial review is the means by which courts supervise those who exercise statutory powers, to ensure that they do not overstep their legal authority.
“This function of judicial review is therefore to ensure the legality, the reasonableness and the fairness of the administrative process and its outcomes.”
The respondents thus argued that the court only had the authority to review the committee’s decision, to determine if there was a mistake, as well as the reasonableness of the court upholding that decision.
Mulligan felt the standard to evaluate the discretionary aid decision is correctness.
“I am satisfied that the decision on this issue was correct given the direction by Menzies J. in his order for a rehearing on the issue of household expenses,” Mulligan said in the decision.
On the $1,270 housing allowance offered, he felt he would have to determine if it was reasonable.
He said the committee followed the director’s input. This was after a meeting between the director and Major, which he believed was comprehensive.
He felt the committee did take Major’s input into account as ordered by the court.
He said he could not find anything wrong with the committee decision.
“The SARC decision not to deal with issues outside its household allowance expenses scope as ordered by Menzies J. was correct,” Mulligan said in the decision.
He said the offer of $1,270 for household equipment was “reasonable in the circumstances.”
He explained that the committee was interpreting its own home statue, something it would know well. He adds that this decision is entitled to deference.
With that, the appeal was dismissed, with Mulligan making no order for costs.
Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar
In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.
Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.
Comments (6)
Up 0 Down 7
Anne North on Aug 7, 2019 at 4:42 pm
Simple answer - the circumstances are not the same. After the Second World War, lots of money poured into Germany for rebuilding. Today's refugees, on the other hand, are mostly not on the winning side of a civil war. They have no home to rebuild.
Up 3 Down 7
Kev on Aug 6, 2019 at 3:27 pm
June do you have the right papers to allow you to vote? Omg, I had no idea.
Up 12 Down 0
Simple answer on Aug 6, 2019 at 7:30 am
Anne North wrote: ….and tell me what they are supposed to do with themselves and their families amongst the rubble.
How about build their country back up like various European countries did after the war? Germany for example not only built back up, but ten years after the war their economy was skyrocketing.
Up 19 Down 2
Juniper Jackson on Aug 4, 2019 at 4:18 pm
Thank you Anne for a thoughtful, impassioned response, written primarily on behalf of others, who perhaps need an advocate against the harder line people like me. I am an immigrant. I had to have a trade to come here in 1965. My husband had to sign surety for me for 5 years that I would not become a ward of the territory. Old Fred Lidstone was very clear, you want welfare your' gettin' a bus ticket out. I had to take a course on Canadian law and what was expected of me, and what I could expect of the country. (which was nothing until I became a citizen, and not a dual.. Canadian all the way.) And that is what I want to see.. People who come here because they WANT to be here, they want to work, have their family, their home, have a 'piece' of the country..look forward to the new life and opportunity. I see too many with their hand out..and then, like the gentlemen in his article, that isn't enough either.. get the other hand out. Milk the system.
Up 10 Down 8
Anne North on Aug 3, 2019 at 5:46 pm
Juniper much of what you say is valid. Many of us are tired of supporting the few slugs in the system. You asked why refugees don't return home 'now that the war us over". Please consider that many don't have a home to return to. Watch the news, see how once vibrant cities have been destroyed, through no fault of those refugees, and tell me what they are supposed to do with themselves and their families amongst the rubble. I cannot imagine the courage and grief that led to people leaving their country to come to our inhospitable climate and essentially start over, often treated with hostility and suspicion.
I will always be grateful to my predecessors who saw that their children would suffer, and possibly starve, if they didn't turn their backs on everything they loved, get on horrible ships, and cross an ocean under abysmal circumstances to come to a country where they were not wanted, and make a new life while building this country. And now, just a few generations later, they are considered to be "invaders" and "colonizers". Let's try to rise above it and treat new immigrants, and refugees, as welcome builders of the future.
Up 25 Down 5
Juniper Jackson on Aug 2, 2019 at 7:27 pm
Social Assistance is there for people in need. I worked all my life and support the program. I KNOW people in need. but i also know entitled, self righteous bums who are career SA recipients. I have personal knowledge of a woman with 4 kids, lives in Yukon Housing, Gets 35,000. a year in child tax benefits and 38,000 in welfare.. two people working at Walmarts don't make that. If you work at all that child welfare benefit gets clawed back until full payment is received by.. that's right.. people who are living off public funds.
Welfare is not the only avenue by which to gain public money. Worker's Comp.. Remember a couple of years ago a man with a back injury? yup.. pictures of him lifting a car engine in his garage.. even his neighbors didn't want to keep paying that bill. There is the 'resettlement' money for newcomers to the country, and the ever popular low income workers amount. There is that part of me that says, the welfare program is just a trial now on minimum guaranteed income that was blown out of the water in Ontario. (those 2,000 people on that program were livid I might add) If there are 50 jobs and 100 people how are those jobless 50 going to live..so take the bums who don't want to work, and won't work, and put them on a guaranteed income. We'll see how that works..we just won't call it guaranteed income. If people want a job they can do that too.. the problem is.. I do want a job, (and have one) but I don't want to pay for that dude that doesn't want a job.
Working Canadian's are paying more that 44% of their incomes into taxes. This structure has brought the worlds undesirables into Canada. The illegals from the US? We can't deport them because their home countries don't want them back. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/law-would-cut-off-aid-to-countries-that-refuse-to-accept-illegal-immigrant-criminals this one quotes criminals, Anyone wonder why refugee's..who should be able to go home now that the war is over, aren't going home? And the illegals, the asylum seekers and the working visa's and the TFW and the nominee's and the students.. There has to be an answer somewhere. I don't know what it is though.