“Nothing for many and too little for most.” Since the release of the 2024 federal budget, this is how advocates have described the Canada Disability Benefit (CDB).
The benefit, which promises a meagre maximum of $200 per month, is already shaping up to be a flawed and disappointing attempt at reducing disturbingly high rates of poverty among persons with disabilities. If the proposed appeal process is not improved, we can add another quip to the quote: “Nothing for many, too little for most and no easy way to fight back.”
With the recent release of the Canada Disability Benefit Act draft regulations and the June 28 announcement that a final round of consultations will take place this summer, advocates remain skeptical about major elements of the benefit. Though the proposed appeals process routes some CDB-related disputes through a tribunal, the introduction of courts as the first destination for other disputes is a red flag for all who value accessible, barrier-free access to income supports.
Appeal rights are a necessary component of income support programs. Persons with disabilities in need of social assistance have decisions made on their behalf constantly – decisions that often have drastic and detrimental impacts on their health and well-being. Social assistance-related decisions often come with minimal explanation, leaving recipients in the dark. For example, the government may deem an applicant ineligible for a needed benefit or may expect a repayment of a large sum of money based on a re-evaluation of eligibility.
Without appeal processes, social assistance recipients would be unable to challenge government decisions they disagree with or believe are mistakes. In essence, appeals – if designed well – can be a lifeline to fairness for social assistance recipients. They can help demand more and better of social assistance legislation that tends to fall short of what people truly need.
However, not all appeal processes are created equal. Complex, barrier-ridden and burdensome appeal processes are inequitable and discouraging for social assistance recipients. For example, directing social assistance recipients to courts to assert their rights ignores their lived reality. The good news is that there is still time to ensure that the regulations for the CDB will establish an appeal process that is truly beneficial and accessible.
So, what would an ideal CDB appeal process look like? The principle of accessibility is key.
Ensure Broad Appeal Rights: Some decisions are completely unjust, or simply incorrect. Restricting appeal rights for CDB claimants would infringe upon their right to justice. If the government cherry-picks the scenarios in which persons with disabilities have the right to appeal, it conveys a message of “we will listen to your concerns when, and only when, we want to.” The finalized regulations should clarify that all CDB decisions can be appealed – rather than just those regarding eligibility and benefit amount.
It conveys a message of “we will listen to your concerns when, and only when, we want to.”
Adjudication through Tribunal, not Opaque Bureaucratic Decision-Making: The government is not a completely impartial body and cannot fairly be the sole arbiter for decisions about an individual’s circumstances. For example, if the government made an initial decision to deny access to the CDB, a change of heart is unlikely the second time around. However, an audit of the Ontario Disability Support Program found that the Social Benefits Tribunal, an independent body, ruled in favour of the person appealing – therefore disagreeing with the government’s initial and re-evaluated decisions – in more than half of the cases. A tribunal further strives to be a more informal and accessible alternative to the court system. Although the CDB regulations currently refer certain appeal requests to the Social Security Tribunal, they require applicants to go to Tax Court for income-related disputes. Appealing to a court, rather than a tribunal, is more complex and time-intensive, resulting in additional stress for people with disabilities enduring the pressures of living on very low incomes.
The Social Security Tribunal also guarantees that adjudicators are “experts in what they do.” In CDB appeal cases, tribunal adjudicators need to understand the intersecting and compounding relationship between disability and poverty. The finalized CDB regulations should stipulate that adjudicators familiar with disability and poverty must be included during appeal cases to ensure fair and comprehensive decision-making for CDB claimants.
Reduce Barriers to Navigating the Legal System: Finally, CDB appellants should be provided with a simple, accessible and supported pathway for demonstrating why the decision they are appealing is incorrect from a legal perspective. In Ontario, the Ontario Disability Support Program currently requires those who are appealing to do all of this legwork and prove the government’s error, which is a laborious process. Expecting people with no legal expertise to navigate a convoluted legislative maze alone reinforces a power imbalance between expert government lawyers and persons with disabilities. The finalized regulations must explicitly state that the burden of proving government error will not be placed on the appellant.
As advocates and future recipients get a final chance to provide input on how the CDB should look, pushing for a robust appeal process is more important than ever. Although the CDB as it stands is grossly inadequate, every dollar counts for persons with disabilities living in poverty. However, without improvements to the proposed appeal regulations, the CDB may not provide as much relief from the damaging, relentless and unjust nature of poverty as intended.
Persons with disabilities in Canada need and deserve access to justice, or they will continue to be pushed to the margins. The federal government has the opportunity to learn from mistakes and ease the way for people with disabilities who rely on social assistance to survive. Now it just needs to act.
The comments section is closed.