Adjust Font Size

The SHRA and RGI Eligibility

Lanark County

ACTO has filed a judicial review to the Divisional Court of a social housing provider's decision terminating a tenant's rent subsidy for failing to provide information that her 11 year old granddaughter had been living with her in accordance with a temporary placement by the Children's Aid Society.

The Social Housing Reform Act (SHRA) provides the legislative framework for eligibility for rent subsidies. Many subsidies are terminated on the ground that the tenant has failed to provide the information necessary in a timely manner. Under the SHRA social housing providers are granted a great deal of discretion in these circumstances, such discretion is frequently not exercised with a view to the overall equities of the case.

ACTO is arguing that the tenant's subsidy should be reinstated and that the social housing provider made several errors in terminating the tenant's subsidy and raise the rent to the market rate, including:

Failing or refusing to exercise the discretion to extend the time period for reporting changes in information;
Fettering its discretion by failing to consider the individual merits of the tenant's situation;
Failing to provide adequate reasons for its decision;
Failing to take into consideration relevant factors and evidence in the exercise of its discretion; and
Making a decision that is improper and unreasonable.

Cross-examinations on the affidavits filed in the application has been completed and ACTO has filed its legal arguments with the Court. No hearing date has yet been set by the Divisional Court.

Brampton

ACTO is also acting as co-counsel in an application for judicial review of a social housing provider's decision to terminate a tenant's rent subsidy on the basis that the tenant failed to advise of an unauthorized occupant in the unit. The tenant disputed the allegation but the decision was upheld on internal review.

It will be argued that the decision to cancel the rent subsidy, and then to deny her internal review, was a denial of natural justice and procedural fairness. In particular, with respect to both decisions, the tenant did not see the evidence and did not have an opportunity to know the case against her and to respond to it.

In addition, although the matter turned on the tenant's credibility and loss of rent subsidy is an extremely important matter, the tenant was not given the opportunity to be heard in person and inadequate reasons for the decisions were provided.

Cross-examinations on the affidavits filed in the application has been completed and the applications has been perfected. It is expected that the application will be heard at Divisional Court in the late spring 2006.