‘Cruel’: Legal community questions Nova Scotia move to exclude tents from higher income assistance

Nova Scotia’s decision to exclude tents from higher income assistance has drawn criticism from Halifax’s legal community after a court ruling appeared to open the door to higher benefits for people living outdoors.

Human rights lawyer Vince Calderhead has spent years seeking better income supports for people living in tents. On Aug. 5, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal ruled that tents count as a legal accommodation. That decision could have allowed people sleeping rough to receive at least $300 more each month.

“

By choosing the option of rewriting the law to overturn that decision, they’ve effectively forced people back onto that $400 a month rate.

Two weeks later, the province revised its income assistance legislation. The changes repealed the definition of a “home” and limited it to residential units with a kitchen and bathroom, along with spaces such as municipally approved rooming homes. The new rules excluded tents from the enhanced rate.

“By choosing the option of rewriting the law to overturn that decision, they’ve effectively forced people back onto that $400 a month rate,” Calderhead said. He questioned why a broad income assistance program would exclude people based on their housing situation and said his legal team was examining whether the province had acted discriminatorily.

“

For the province to have a broad income assistance program and then say, ‘By the way, we’re excluding a certain category of people.’ That doesn’t smell right.

Dalhousie Legal Aid had begun helping people in tent encampments apply for the enhanced rate after the court ruling. Mark Culligan, a worker with the organization, said the regulatory changes lowered the benefits available to unhoused people. He also rejected the argument that tenants necessarily face higher expenses than people living in tents, noting that people without food storage may need to buy more fresh or packaged food instead of purchasing in bulk.

A provincial spokesperson said the court had interpreted the regulations as written and identified unclear language about accommodation. The amendments, the spokesperson said, provide clearer direction on how different living situations are considered when benefits are determined.

“

They need to buy food. If they can’t store the food, that means they have to buy more fresh food or more packaged food. It means higher food costs. It means you can’t buy in bulk.