Supreme Court of Canada Overturns B.C. Court of Appeal Decision in S.A. v. Metro Vancouver Housing Corp

The Supreme Court of Canada, in S.A. v. Metro Vancouver Housing Corp., 2019 SCC 4, overturned the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, a decision I wrote about here. This case deals with the use of a discretionary trust to provide benefits for a person with disabilities without jeopardising other benefits that are means tested. These trusts are sometimes referred to as Henson Trusts, and in many provinces, including British Columbia, are an effective way of preserving the person’s provincial disability benefits.

S.A. is a person with disabilities who lives in a subsidized rental residence provided by the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation. The Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation also provides additional rental assistance to some of its residents who meet certain criteria, including having assets below a certain amount.

S.A. is the beneficiary of a trust, created by court order varying her father’s will. She and her sister are co-trustees of the trust. The terms of the trust provide that the trustees have discretion to decide if and when to make payments to her. Although she is one of the trustees, she and her sister must make decisions unanimously. The terms of the trust do not permit her to collapse it and take the funds. Accordingly, she does not have the ability to unilaterally take money out of trust for herself.

To receive additional rent assistance, S.A. is required to provide verification of her income and assets. She disclosed to the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation that she was the beneficiary of the trust, but declined to provide any information about the trust assets on the grounds that it was not relevant to her eligibility. Metro Vancouver Housing Corp refused to consider her application for additional rent assistance, without further disclosure.

She unsuccessfully sought a declaration from the Supreme Court of British Columbia that the discretionary trust was not an asset within the meaning of her tenancy agreement or the application for additional rent assistance. She was also unsuccessful in her appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada allowed her appeal and declared that she has the right to have her application for a rent subsidy considered by the Metro Vancouver Housing Corp., and that her interest in the trust is not “an asset” for the purpose of deciding her application.

The outcome turned on the majority’s interpretation of the word “asset” in the contracts between S.A. and the Metro Vancouver Housing Corp. and in particular the Assistance Application. The majority concluded that “asset” refers to something that can be used by the applicant to discharge her debts and liabilities. Because S.A. did not have the control over whether she receives any funds held in trust, the funds are not an asset for the purpose of the application. Madam Justice Côté wrote:

[48]                          For this reason, a reasonable person who interprets the Assistance Application objectively and without reference to the Asset Ceiling Policy would understand the word “assets” to mean an applicant’s property or interest(s) in property that can actually be used to discharge his or her debts and liabilities, including the monthly rent that the applicant owes to MVHC. Given the purpose of the Rental Assistance Program, there is no reason why MVHC would concern itself with a financial resource — like a contingent interest in a trust — that an applicant cannot use in order to pay his or her monthly rent.  

What are the implications of this case? On the one hand, it is important to keep in mind that the Court here considered a particular program and contract. It is possible to define “asset” differently and in a manner that includes an interest in a discretionary trust.  Madam Justice Côté expressly stated that her “reasons should not be taken to suggest that the interest of a person with disabilities in a properly constituted Henson trust can never be treated as an “asset” for any purpose whatsoever.”

On the other hand, the analysis is likely to affect how courts interpret the term “asset” in other contracts or legislation in similar circumstances unless the term is defined in a manner that clearly brings interests in discretionary trusts within the definition.

The majority’s analysis of a beneficiary’s interest in a discretionary trust is helpful, and may have implications on the interpretation of legislation, such as some of the recent British Columbia legislation and proposed legislation with vague, circuitous definitions of “beneficial owner.”

Madam Justice Côté characterized S.A.’s interest as follows:

[36]                          It is thus clear that, although the Trustees have an obligation to consider whether to make distributions out of the Trust for S.A.’s care and maintenance, they are not actually required to distribute any of the Trust’s assets either to her or for her benefit. Unlike the beneficiary of a fixed trust (i.e. a trust where the trustee has no discretion as to distributions to the beneficiaries), S.A. therefore does not have an enforceable right to receive anything unless and until the Trustees decide to exercise their discretion in her favour. 

….

[39]                          The foregoing analysis makes two things clear. First, the terms of the Trust provide the Trustees with exclusive discretion as to whether payments should be made to S.A. While the Trustees must periodically consider whether distributions should be made, they are not obliged to exercise this discretion in any particular manner. Second, the structure of the Trust prevents S.A. from terminating the Trust on her own under the rule in Saunders v. Vautier. As a result, S.A. has no enforceable right to receive any of the Trust’s income or capital: unless and until the Trustees exercise their discretion in her favour, S.A.’s interest in the Trust is akin to a mere hope that some or all of its property will be distributed to her at some point in the future. 

The majority also approval of the decision in Ontario (Director of Income Maintenance Branch of the Ministry of Community and Social Services) v. Henson (1987), 26 O.A.C. 332, aff’d (1989), 36 E.T.R. 192 (Ont. C.A.), from which the name “Henson trust” is derived.

Assets Held in a Discretionary Trust May Affect Some Types of Assistance for Beneficiaries with Disabilities (But Still Often a Good Idea)

[The B.C. Court of Appeal decision in S.A. v. Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation, 2017 BCCA 2, discussed below has been overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, 2019 SCC 4. You can read my post on the Supreme Court of Canada decision here.]

I have often suggested to clients with children or other intended beneficiaries of their estates with disabilities that they consider creating discretionary trusts for the beneficiary with a disability if the beneficiary is eligible for British Columbia benefits for persons with disability. For the purpose of determining whether someone is eligible for these provincial benefits, discretionary trusts are not included in that person’s assets. The Provincial Government will also allow a person with a disability who has received an inheritance or perhaps a settlement for a personal injury into a trust to qualify for the disability benefits.

I have discussed these trusts, sometimes referred to as Henson Trusts (named after the Ontario decision of The Minister of Community and Social Services v Henson, [1987] OJ No 1121, aff’d [1989] OJ No 2093 (Ont CA)) here. In a fully discretionary trust, the beneficiary has no right to the income or capital, except to the extent that the trustee exercises her discretion to make payments to the beneficiary.

Although discretionary trusts are a good way of making provision for a person with disability, allowing that person to receive provincial disability benefits, while allowing the trustee of the trust to use the assets in a manner that promotes the person’s independence, the trust may still affect the person with a disability’s eligibility for other programs.

This issue was recently highlighted in the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in S.A. v. Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation, 2017 BCCA 2. S.A. is a person with disabilities who lives in a subsidized rental residence provided by the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation. The Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation also provides additional rental assistance to some of its residents who meet certain criteria, including having assets below a certain amount.

S.A. is the beneficiary of a trust, created by court order varying her father’s will. To receive addition rent assistance, S.A. is required to provide verification of her income and assets. She disclosed to the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation that she was the beneficiary of the trust, but declined to provide any information about the trust assets on the grounds that it was not relevant to her eligibility.

She unsuccessfully sought a declaration from the Supreme Court of British Columbia that the discretionary trust was not an asset within the meaning of her tenancy agreement or the application for additional rent assistance. She appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal, and the Disability Alliance B.C. intervened in support of her position.

Mr. Justice Goepel, writing for the Court of Appeal, held that the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation was entitled to disclosure of further information about the trust assets. Different programs have different eligibility criteria. Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation has limited funds available for additional rent assistance, and information about discretionary trusts is relevant to choosing which applicants to provide the assistance.

Mr. Justice Goepel wrote at paragraphs 47 through 49 and 54 through 58,

[47]         I accept the intervenor’s submissions that discretionary trusts play an important role in promoting the independence and full citizenship of PWDs. That said, discretionary trusts also provide some individuals with benefits unavailable to others who are not beneficiaries of such trusts. Whether such benefits should be considered in determining which individuals should receive public assistance raises difficult public policy questions. I do not accept the intervenor’s broad contention that if this Court allows MVHC to take into account an interest in a Henson trust, it would affect not just this housing assistance program but also every other form of social assistance that relies on an eligibility test based on asset value. Each social assistance program has its own individual eligibility criteria. Whether benefits from a discretionary trust must be taken into account will vary from program to program and depend upon the rules and regulations that govern eligibility for any particular program.

[48]         The issue underlying this litigation is what information MVHC can request from tenants in determining whether to grant rental assistance. In the specific context of this case, the question is whether MVHC can require S.A. to provide additional details of the Trust of which she is a beneficiary over and above the information she has provided to date.

[49]         I note at the outset that many of the submissions have lost sight of this fundamental question. The parties have made extensive submissions concerning the tenancy agreement, the nature of the Trust and the difficulty valuing the Trust given its discretionary nature. In doing so, they have conflated the information that MVHC can consider in determining the eligibility of a tenant for rental assistance and the material it may consider in determining which eligible applicants will actually receive rental assistance. This confusion is perhaps understandable given MVHC’s letter of April 23, 2015 that stated it required particulars of the Trust to determine S.A.’s eligibility for additional rental assistance. With respect, the question is not limited to determining S.A.’s eligibility for rental assistance but is also whether MVHC can take the Trust into consideration in determining how to exercise its discretion as to which of the eligible applicants should receive a rental subsidy.
...

[54]         While S.A. may not have a vested interest in the Trust, she clearly has a beneficial interest. If she wishes to apply for a rental subsidy she must disclose the amount in the Trust.

[55]         MVHC, through the Assistance Application, requires applicants to provide information which MVHC considers to determine whether it will provide rental assistance. Applicants agree to provide such additional information as MVHC may require. In this case, MVHC says it requires further information about the Trust to determine both S.A.’s eligibility for rental assistance and, in the context of a program in which assistance is not available for all eligible applicants, whether S.A. should receive such assistance in preference to other eligible applicants.

[56]         I agree with the chambers judge’s analysis that the Trust is an asset of S.A. and that MVHC is entitled, pursuant to the provisions of the Assistance Application, to the further information it requested concerning the Trust to assist it in determining whether to provide rental assistance.

[57]         MVHC operates a subsidy program for persons in need. The Additional Rent Assistance program is discretionary based on a consideration of factors including financial factors and public housing needs. MVHC is entitled to know the particulars of the Trust so it can properly weigh S.A.’s rent assistance application against other eligible candidates. MVHC is entitled to know the respective financial positions of all applicants in determining how to spend its limited funds.
[58]         I find MVHC is entitled to require S.A., if she wishes to seek a rental subsidy, to provide the information requested regarding the Trust. This includes a statement showing the current balance of the trust fund along with details of all disbursements made since it was established.  Because S.A. has refused to provide the requested information, her application is incomplete.  As set out in the Assistance Application, MVHC will not process incomplete forms. Only when S.A. provides the requested information will MVHC have to decide whether to continue to extend her rental assistance.

Creating a discretionary trust for a beneficiary with disabilities in British Columbia is still a good way to provide for the beneficiary without affecting the provincial Persons with Disabilities Benefits, but may affect eligibility for other types of assistance. 

Significant Increase in Assets Exempton for Persons Receiving Brititsh Columbia Disability Benefits

Earlier this month the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation announced that a person receiving Persons with Disabilities benefits from the Government of British Columbia will be able to have funds of up to $100,000 without it affecting his or her eligibility to receive the benefits. Here is an excerpt from the press release:

Beginning Dec. 1, 2015, the amount of assets that people receiving disability assistance may hold without losing eligibility for assistance will rise to $100,000 for an individual with the Persons with Disabilities (PWD) designation, and $200,000 for a couple where both have PWD designation. Currently, the asset limits are $5,000 and $10,000 respectively.

And for the first time in B.C., persons with disabilities will be able to receive cash gifts with no effect on their eligibility for assistance. Under current policy, people receiving income and disability assistance can only receive one-time gifts without affecting their eligibility.

In the case of an inheritance, the higher asset limits will free up many clients from having to set aside that money in a trust.

For those of my clients making wills leaving a significant amount of money to a child or other beneficiary who is receiving Persons with Disabilities benefits in British Columbia, I will continue to suggest in many cases that they create a discretionary trust for the beneficiary, rather than an outright gift. First, if the amount exceeds the new limit, then a trust will still be necessary for the beneficiary to continue to be eligible for the benefits. Secondly, the rules may change in the future, and perhaps the exemption may be lowered again.

2015 Federal Budget Contains Changes to Tax Free Savings Accounts and Registered Retirement Income Funds

The 2015 Canadian Federal Government’s Budget released on April 21, 2015 does not appear to contain any changes that will have an impact on trusts or estate-planning (perhaps mercifully given the problems created by the 2014 Budget). There are a couple of changes that will affect retirement savings.

First, the Government has increased the amount that you may put into a Tax Free Savings Account (“TFSA”), from $5,500 per year to $10,000 per year effective January 1, 2015. The Budget has a nice summary of how TFSAs work.

Available since January 1, 2009, the TFSA is a flexible, registered general-purpose  savings vehicle that allows Canadian residents aged 18 or older to earn tax-free investment income, including interest, dividends and capital gains. TFSAs can include a wide range of investment options such as mutual funds, Guaranteed Investment Certificates, publicly traded shares and bonds. Contributions to a TFSA are not tax deductible, but investment income earned in a TFSA and withdrawals from it are tax-free. Unused TFSA contribution room is carried forward and the amount of withdrawals from a TFSA can be re-contributed in future years.

TFSAs differ from Registered Retirement Savings Plans (“RRSPs”) in a few key ways. Unlike RRSPs, there is no tax deduction available when you contribute to a TFSA. But TFSAs can be withdrawn without tax, while you pay tax on RRSPs when you withdraw funds from them. With both TFSAs and RRSPs, funds can grow inside the plan without tax.

Generally, if you are in a low tax bracket, it probably makes more sense (and cents) to contribute the up to the maximum permitted in a TFSA in priority to RRSP contributions, especially if you think you may later end up in a higher tax bracket. TFSAs are also a better vehicle for saving for things other than retirement, such as buying a home.

But if you are in a high tax bracket, RRSPs may be preferable because you get the tax break when you contribute. The benefits of RRSPs are enhanced if you expect to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement.

Another key difference between RRSPs and TFSAs is that with an RRSP when you reach the age of 71, you have to either withdraw the funds from an RRSP, buy and annuity, or convert the RRSP to a Registered Retirement Income Fund (“RRIF”). In contrast, you can retain and continue to contribute to a TFSA until death.

I suspect the most common approach to RRSPs at 71 is to convert an RRSP into a RRIF. With a RIFF you are required to withdraw a minimum percentage each year, the percentage increasing with age. You may take out more than the minimum, but you pay tax on the withdrawals.

This brings me to the second change in the 2015 Budget. The Government has reduced the percentages that you have to take out of a RRIF each year, the effect of which is to allow you to defer tax longer. Here is a description from the 2015 Budget (tables omitted):

The basic purpose of the tax deferral provided on savings in RPPs and RRSPs is to encourage and assist Canadians to accumulate savings over their working careers inorder to meet their retirement income needs. Consistent with this purpose, savings inRPPs and RRSPs must be converted into a retirement income vehicle by age 71. Inparticular, an RRSP must be converted to a RRIF by the end of the year in whichthe RRSP holder reaches 71 years of age, and a minimum amount must be withdrawn from the RRIF annually beginning the year after it is established (alternatively, the RRSP savings may be used to purchase an annuity). This treatment ensures that the tax-deferred RRSP/RRIF savings serve their intended retirement income purpose.

A formula is used to determine the required minimum amount a person mustwithdraw each year from a RRIF. The formula is based on a percentage factormultiplied by the value of the assets in the RRIF. The percentage factors (the RRIFfactors) are based on a particular rate of return and indexing assumption. Currently, a senior is required to withdraw 7.38 per cent of their RRIF in the year they are age71 at the start of the year. The RRIF factor increases each year until age 94 when the percentage that seniors are required to withdraw annually is capped at 20 per cent.

The existing RRIF factors have been in place since 1992. Economic Action Plan2015 proposes to adjust the RRIF minimum withdrawal factors that apply in respectof ages 71 to 94 to better reflect more recent long-term historical real rates of  returnand expected inflation. As a result, the new RRIF factors will be substantially lower than the existing factors. The new RRIF factors will range from 5.28 per cent at age 71 to 18.79 per cent at age 94. The percentage that seniors will be required to withdraw from their RRIF will remain capped at 20 per cent at age 95 and above. Table A5.2 in Annex 5 shows the existing and proposed new RRIF factors.

By permitting more capital preservation, the new factors will help reduce the risk ofoutliving one’s savings, while ensuring that the tax deferral provided on RRSP/RRIF savings continues to serve a retirement income purpose. For example, the new RRIF factors will permit close to 50 per cent more capital to be preserved to age 90, compared to the existing factors (Table 4.1.2).

Changes to Ministry of Social Development Policy Now Allows Up To $200,000 in Non-Discretionary Trust

The British Columbia Ministry of Social Development changed its policy to allow a person receiving disability assistance to place up to $200,000 in a non-discretionary trust effective October 1, 2012. This is an increase from $100,000.

Provincial disability benefits are means tested. If a person who meets the criteria for a Person with Disabilities, that person may receive disability assistance if his or her income and assets are below certain levels. In determining a person’s assets, there are assets that are exempt. An interest in a non-discretionary trust is exempt if the assets in the trust do not exceed $200,000. The former limit was $100,000. There is no limit for assets held in a discretionary trust.

The terms “discretionary” and “non-discretionary” trusts are defined in the policy:

Discretionary trust
A trust in which the trustee has absolute authority over payments of capital and income from the trust. 

Non-Discretionary Trust
A trust in which the trustee does not have absolute authority over payments of capital and income from the trust.  The beneficiary may have some control, or the trustee may be required to make certain payments.

The Ministry has made a number of other changes. According to the announcement made October 1, 2012:

Some of the key changes that take effect today include:

• A $200 monthly earnings exemption for all expected-to-work clients to give employable individuals a chance to build job skills and experience, take advantage of short-term or temporary work, and better provide for their families while receiving assistance.

• An $800 monthly earnings exemption for individuals receiving disability assistance.

• An exemption of income tax refunds so individuals and families on income and disability assistance will be able to keep their full income tax refund without it affecting their benefits.

• Restoring a number of medically necessary medical equipment and supplies for clients on income and disability assistance, including ventilator supplies, bariatric scooters, orthoses and apnea monitors.

• Access to dental services for children of families on hardship assistance so parents can take their children in for regular dental checkups.

• An extension of income assistance to parents without legal status in Canada who are fleeing abuse and can't leave the country with their children.

Further changes will come into effect next year, including: 

• Mandatory income tax filing rules for those on income and disability assistance - which comes into effect in spring 2013 - will ensure individuals and families are getting all the tax credits they are entitled to. Appropriate exemptions will be in place to protect anyone who may be exposed to risk, such as fleeing an abusive partner.

• Annualized earnings exemptions for individuals on disability assistance will provide the flexibility to calculate earnings on an annual basis, so that individuals with disabilities can maximize their earnings during times when they are feeling healthy and able to work.

B.C. Court of Appeal Finds that Public Guardian and Trustee Fees Are Not Excessive

In a previous post , I wrote about a Supreme Court of British Columbia decision in which the court refused to order that the proceeds of a settlement of a lawsuit brought on behalf of a minor be held by the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia. The Court found that the fees charged by the Public Guardian and Trustee were excessive.

The Public Guardian and Trustee has successfully appealed the Supreme Court decision in British Columbia (Public Guardian and Trustee) v. Strand, 2009 BCCA 158. The Court of Appeal found that the fees charged by the Public Guardian and Trustee over the course of the trust for the minor children would be lower than the fees that comparable trust companies in the private sector would charge.

Mr. Justice Frankel, in the Court of Appeal, wrote:

[26] In my view, the chambers judge did make a palpable and overriding error in his finding that the fees charged by the Public Guardian are excessive. This error is evinced by the chambers judge’s treatment of the 5% “capital commission fee”, which he considered to be an unwarranted set-up-fee. His treatment of that fee indicates that he misapprehended its purpose. It is not simply a file-opening fee. Rather, it is part of the overall fees that the Public Guardian charges to cover his services during the period of a trust. Those services include providing money management, trust officer services, accounting, and issuing documents required for tax purposes.

[27] The chambers judge also fell into error by failing to properly consider how fees are charged by the Public Guardian over the life of a trust. In this case, the trusts will be administered over several years. The affidavit evidence presented both to the chambers judge and to this Court indicates that, over the long-term, the Public Guardian’s fees will be substantially less than those charged by a private trust company such as the Bank of Nova Scotia (assuming such a company would be prepared to act, which appears not to be the case). This differential will exist regardless of the rate of return generated by the trust funds.

[28] Given that fees charged by the Public Guardian are not excessive, and appear to be significantly lower over the life of the trust than those charged by private sector trustees, there is, in my view, no foundation for the critical language used by the chambers judge in his characterization of the manner in which the Public Guardian fulfilled his statutory duties.

Registered Disability Savings Plan Blog

I have found an excellent blog that deals with Registered Disability Savings Plans. The blog includes information about these plans, and updates on related provincial legislation concerning whether the savings will be considered assets for the purpose of entitlements to provincial disability benefits (each province has its own rules). The blog has links to related sites and a Registered Disability Savings Plan calculator.

You can check out the RDSP blog here.

British Columbia Public Guardian and Trustee Management Fees

[Since I wrote this post, the British Columbia Court of Appeal has overturned the Supreme Court of British Columbia decision discussed below. See my more recent post here.]

One of the roles of the British Columbia Public Guardian and Trustee is to manage funds for persons who do not have the legal capacity to manage their own funds. This includes adults who are found to be incapable of managing their affairs, and who do not have a family member or friend willing and able to act as a guardian, and children who receive financial settlements.

The fees that the Public Guardian and Trustee charges for his services are set by the Government of British Columbia by Regulation.

Are these fees too high?

Mr. Justice Burnyeat in British Columbia (Public Guardian and Trustee) v. Strand, 2008 BCSC 441, found that the fees charged by the Public Guardian and Trustee to set up an manage an account for two infant children would be too high.

The court was asked to approve a settlement of a claim brought on behalf of two children as a result of a car accident in which their mother died. In his decision released yesterday, Mr. Justice Burnyeat approved the amount of the settlement and the proposed legal fees.

But the Court refused to order that the settlement proceeds be held by the Public Guardian and Trustees. Mr. Justice Burnyeat found the fees that would be charged by the Public Guardian and Trustee to be higher than those charged by private sector financial institutions. He wrote,

After subtracting the approved fees and disbursements, the approximate amounts available in trust would be $135,000.00 for April Beaurivage and $115,000.00 for Natalie Beaurivage. If those amounts were received, the 5% “capital commission charge on the value of each Deposit” would be approximately $6,750.00 and $5,750.00 respectively.

I am of the opinion that the imposition of a “capital commission charge” of $6,750.00 and $5,750.00 is excessive and unwarranted as a “Set-Up Fee” and in no way in keeping with the actual costs of creating such an investment file to facilitate the undertaking of the obligations that a trustee owes to a beneficiary. For instance, if the counsel retained by the Public Trustee had purported to charge such a set-up fee in order to establish a trust account, that fee would not be allowed by the Court and might well be the subject matter of an inquiry by the Law Society of British Columbia. The question which arises is whether the “capital commission charge” is reasonable in the circumstances. I have concluded that it is not. In this regard, the material in evidence would indicate that private investment companies charge considerably less. For instance, the “Set Up Fee” charged by Scotia Trust (“to cover the time taken to review documents, receive assets and set up the trust”) and TD Canada Trust Private Trust Department (“an acceptance/set-up fee”) would be $1,000.00. In the case of TD Canada Trust, the Set-Up Fee would be a minimum of $1,000.00 and a maximum of $5,000.00.

Mr. Justice Burnyeat expressed his view in no uncertain terms that in enacting the Regulation setting out the applicable fees, the government had not acted in the best interest of infants as the government had claimed. After quoting a former Attorney General's speech in the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Justice Burnyeat wrote,

It can hardly be said that the Public Trustee is “protecting the financial interests of young people by holding funds in trust” for them when the financial interests are not protected by the levying of fees which are in excess of what would be charged by the private sector. Similarly, it can hardly be said that the Public Trustee is “protecting the legal interests of young people by acting as litigation guardian” when the Public Trustee also recommends that it rather than other potential trustees should receive trust funds for investment. It is not presently correct to say that: “historically the public trustee has charged fees for trustee services consistent with those charged by private trustees” when the proposed fees charged appear to be in excess of what would be available if private trustees were retained.

Mr. Justice Burnyeat ordered that the funds be held in a lawyer's trust account until alternative arrangements for the management and investment of the funds were made and approved by the court.

British Columbia to Exempt Federal Registered Disability Plans When Calculating Eligibility for Provincial Disability Benefits

I wrote previously about the Federal Government's announcement in the 2007 budget to introduce Registered Disability Savings Plans ("RDSP"). These plans would allow families to contribute funds to a plan for a person with a disability. The plans allow the person with a disability to defer tax on the investment income inside the plan until he or she withdraws money. There are also matching Federal Government grants.

I wrote that

the effectiveness of this program will depend on how the various provinces treat the savings in the RDSP. For example, British Columbia's provincial disability benefits are means tested....If an RDSP, or payments from an RDSP, disqualify a person with a disability from receiving provincial disability benefits, the program will be of little or no benefit to the beneficiary.

The British Columbia Government issued a press release a couple of days ago stating that the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance will exempt RDSPs when calculating a person's eligibility for British Columbia disability benefits. The RDSPs will not be considered in the asset test, and a person who is eligible for the provincial disability benefits may receive disbursements from an RDSP without losing any of the provincial benefits.

The press release is as follows:

The Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance will fully exempt the federal government’s Registered Disability Savings Plan when calculating clients’ eligibility for disability assistance.

British Columbians with disabilities who are eligible for the Government of Canada’s Disability Tax Credit and their families or legal guardians will be able to contribute up to a lifetime maximum of $200,000 (after tax dollars) to a Registered Disability Savings Plan before they turn 60.

The federal government has released details of proposed changes to legislation that would enable a national Registered Disability Savings Plan to be in place beginning in
2008.

The exemption by British Columbia’s Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance will allow clients and their families to keep disbursements from the Registered Disability Savings Plan on top of their regular disability assistance payments.

Further, British Columbia will exempt assets held in the Registered Disability Savings Plan when calculating clients’ eligibility for their monthly disability assistance.

The Registered Disability Savings Plan exemption is intended to encourage families and friends to save for the future needs of children and adults with severe disabilities. The exemption supports the government’s Disability Strategy and commitment to build the best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities.

British Columbians who are eligible for the Government of Canada’s Disability Tax Credit but are not yet receiving it are encouraged to apply for it now so that they will be eligible for the new Registered Disability Savings Plan when introduced.

Registered Disability Savings Plan

I think the most interesting program in today's Canadian Federal Government budget is the Registered Disability Savings Plan ("RDSP"). Beginning in 2008, a parent of a child with a disability may contribute to a RDSP for the child. There is no tax deduction for the contributions, but there are some matching grants from the Federal Government. You will be able to accumulate income inside the RDSP tax free. The person with a disability pays tax when benefits are paid out from the RDSP.

A person with a disability can also contribute to his or her own RDSP. It appears that, in addition to parents, other family members may contribute as well, but it is not clear to me from reading the budget if anyone can contribute, or if there are restrictions on who can contribute.

I expect that this program will work well for those families who can afford to put some funds away for a person with a disability.

For very low income families, the Federal Government will contribute up to $1000 per year to an RDSP without requiring matching contributions.

Before I reproduce part of the budget dealing with RDSPs, I have a couple of caveats. First, the criteria for the disability tax credit requires a "severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment." The tests may be quite stringent, and not all people with disabilities will qualify. See Canada Revenue Agency's Interpretation Bulletin "IT-519R2 (Consolidated)."

Secondly, the effectiveness of this program will depend on how the various provinces treat the savings in the RDSP. For example, British Columbia's provincial disability benefits are means tested. (I have written a previous post on this issue here.) If an RDSP, or payments from an RDSP, disqualify a person with a disability from receiving provincial disability benefits, the program will be of little or no benefit to the beneficiary.

The following is an excerpt from the Annex 5 Tax Measures: Supplementary Information and Notices of Ways and Means Motions, of the 2007 Federal Budget:

Registered Disability Savings Plan

To help parents and others save for the long-term financial security of a child with a severe disability, Budget 2007 proposes to introduce a new Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP) with a Canada Disability Savings Grant (CDSG) program and Canada Disability Savings Bond (CDSB) program. The RDSP will be based generally on the existing Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP) design, as recommended by the Expert Panel on Financial Security for Children with Severe Disabilities.

The main design elements of the RDSP are described below. Further technical details will be provided when legislation is brought forward. Certain design details and administrative mechanisms will be developed in consultation with financial institutions. The Government will work with financial institutions to put the necessary administrative mechanisms (for example, for paying CDSGs and CDSBs to RDSPs) in place to allow financial institutions to begin offering RDSPs to Canadians as soon as possible in 2008. Individuals establishing an RDSP in 2008 will be eligible for a full year’s CDSG and CDSB entitlement.

Eligibility

Generally, any person eligible for the disability tax credit (DTC) and resident in Canada, or their parent or other legal representative, will be eligible to establish an RDSP. The DTC-eligible individual will be the plan beneficiary. The Social Insurance Number of the beneficiary, and of the parent or other legal representative, will be required in order to establish the plan. These requirements must be met when the plan is established and whenever a contribution is made to the plan or a CDSG or CDSB is paid to the plan.

Tax Treatment

Contributions to an RDSP will not be deductible. The investment income on contributions, CDSGs and CDSBs will accrue tax-free. Contributions will not be included in income for tax purposes when paid out of an RDSP. CDSGs, CDSBs, and investment income earned in the plan will be included in the beneficiary’s income for tax purposes when paid out of an RDSP.

Contributions

Contributions to an RDSP will be limited to a lifetime maximum of $200,000 in respect of the beneficiary, with no annual limit. There will be no restriction on who can contribute to the plan. Contributions will be permitted until the end of the year in which the beneficiary attains 59 years of age.

Canada Disability Savings Grants (CDSGs)

To provide additional direct government assistance to help ensure the future financial security of a child with a severe disability, RDSP contributions made in a year will qualify for CDSGs at matching rates of 100, 200 or 300 per cent, depending on family net income and the amount contributed. Table A5.2 sets out the specific matching rates that will apply to annual contributions, by family net income
level.

Table A5.2

Canada Disability Savings Grant (CDSG)Matching Rates on Contributions
Family Net Income ($)
[Table provides that for income of up to 74,357, the grants are 300% for the first $500, and 200% on the next $1000. For those with incomes of over 74,357 the grant is 100% on the first $1000.]

The family net income threshold shown in Table A5.2 is in 2007 dollars. This threshold will be indexed to inflation for 2008, when RDSPs become operational,
and for subsequent taxation years. Family net income will generally be determined in the same manner as for the Canada Education Savings Grant, except that, for years after the year in which the beneficiary attains 18 years of age, the relevant income will be that of the beneficiary and their spouse or common-law partner.

There will be a lifetime limit of $70,000 on CDSGs paid in respect of an RDSP beneficiary. An RDSP will be eligible to receive CDSGs until the end of the year in which the beneficiary attains 49 years of age.

Canada Disability Savings Bonds (CDSBs)

To ensure that RDSPs help promote the future financial security of children with a severe disability in lower-income families, CDSBs of up to $1,000 will be paid annually to the RDSPs of low and modest-income beneficiaries and families. CDSBs will not be contingent on contributions to an RDSP.

The maximum $1,000 CDSB will be paid to an RDSP where family net income does not exceed $20,883. The CDSB will be phased out gradually for those with family net income between $20,883 and $37,178. These income thresholds are in 2007 dollars and will be indexed to inflation for 2008, when RDSPs become operational, and for subsequent taxation years. Family net income will be determined in the same manner as for the CDSG.

There will be a lifetime limit of $20,000 on CDSBs paid in respect of an RDSP beneficiary. An RDSP will be eligible to receive CDSBs until the end of the year in which the beneficiary attains 49 years of age.

Payments

Payments from an RDSP will be required to commence by the end of the year in which the beneficiary attains 60 years of age.

Payments from an RDSP will be subject to a maximum annual limit determined by reference to the life expectancy of the beneficiary and the fair market value of the
property of the plan, consistent with the Expert Panel’s proposals.

In addition, the beneficiary of an RDSP, or the beneficiary’s legal representative,
will be permitted to encroach on the capital and income of the plan, in such amounts and for such purposes as the plan may provide.

To ensure that RDSP contributions, CDSGs and CDSBs are used to support the beneficiary, only the beneficiary or the beneficiary’s legal representative will be permitted to receive payments from the RDSP. Contributors will not be entitled to receive a refund of contributions.

Repayments of CDSGs and CDSBs

There will be a requirement for an RDSP to repay to the government all CDSGs and CDSBs (and associated investment income) paid to the plan in the ten years preceding a payment from the plan, upon the cessation of the beneficiary’s eligibility for the DTC or the death of the beneficiary.

Death or Cessation of Disability

Where the beneficiary of an RDSP either ceases to be eligible for the DTC or dies, the funds in the RDSP (net of repayments as described above) will be required to be paid to the beneficiary or pass to the beneficiary’s estate. That amount (net of contributions) will be included in the income of the Beneficiary for tax purposes.

Treatment of the RDSP for Means-Tested Benefits

Budget 2007 proposes that amounts paid out of an RDSP will not be taken into account for the purposes of calculating income-tested benefits delivered through the income tax system. In addition, RDSP payments will not reduce Old Age Security or Employment Insurance benefits.

Provinces and territories provide income support for persons with disabilities through means-tested programs. The Expert Panel noted that, for the RDSP program to be effective, RDSP assets should not disqualify a plan beneficiary from receiving provincial or territorial income support provided to persons with disabilities.

The Expert Panel also noted that income payments from the plan should supplement—not reduce—income support provided under these programs at least
until the level of income support plus RDSP payments exceeds the Low Income Cut
Off (LICO) for the province or territory.

The Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, in collaboration with the Minister of Finance, will work with the provinces and territories to ensure that the RDSP is an effective savings vehicle to improve the financial security and well-being of children with severe disabilities.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Hislop

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision today in a class action suit brought on behalf of same-sex partners who were denied Canada Pension Plan survivor’s benefits because their partners died before January 1, 1998, and on behalf of same-sex partners who were not eligible for benefits in respect of any time before July 2000. The case is called, Canada (Attorney General) v. Hislop, 2007 SCC 10.

The Canada Pension Plan now provides for benefits to surviving married spouses and surviving common-law partners of deceased person who were contributors to the Canada Pension Plan. The definition of common-law partners includes opposite and same-sex partners who lived in a conjugal relationship. Accordingly, a surviving same-sex partner of a deceased contributor may receive Canada Pension Plan survivorship benefits.

But, it was not always so.

The federal government amended the Canada Pension Plan, RSC 1985, c. C-8, to include same-sex partners effective July 2000. The amendments contained some restrictions. The new provisions allowing survivorship benefits to same-sex partners did not apply if the Canada Pension Plan contributor died before January 1, 1998. If the contributor died on December 31, 1997, the contributor’s same-sex partner would not be entitled to any survivorship benefits.

Furthermore, those same-sex partners who were eligible to receive survivorship benefits could only receive benefits from July 2000. If the contributor died in November 1999, the surviving same-sex partner was not eligible for the benefits in respect of the period from November 1999 through June 2000.

The Canada Pension Plan also provides that a surviving spouse or common-law partner (whether same-sex or opposite-sex) may only receive benefits in respect of a period of up to one year before he or she applies for the benefits. For example, if your spouse died in January 2002, and you applied for benefits in April 2003, you would be entitled to the arrears of benefits from April 2002, but not for January, February or March 2002.

George Hislop, Brent Daum, Albert McNutt, Eric Brogaard and Gail Meredith as representative plaintiffs challenged the restrictions in the legislation. They argued that by limiting the rights of same-sex survivors, the federal government violated section 15 (1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15 (1) says,

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

The representative plaintiffs advanced arguments on four main issues as follows:

1. The legislation discriminated against anyone whose same-sex partner died before January 1, 1998. In contrast, the opposite-sex partner of a deceased contributor who died before January 1, 1998 is eligible for survivorship benefits.

2. Similarly, by disallowing benefits for the period before July 2000, the legislation discriminated against same-sex partners, who were not treated equally to opposite-sex partners in similar circumstances.

3. Because the legislation allowing same-sex partners to receive survivorship benefits did not come into effect until July 2000, the provision limiting payments in respect of benefits for up to one year before the survivor applies has a discriminatory effect. The representative plaintiffs argued it should be suspended in some cases. This would allow those who were not eligible to apply to receive the benefits they could have received if the legislation had been changed when section 15 of the Charter came into effect on April 17, 1985.

4. The estates of those same-sex partners who would have been entitled to survivorship benefits if the legislation had been amended earlier should receive the survivorship benefits.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provision excluding the surviving same-sex partners of contributors who died before January 1, 1998, violated section 15 of the Charter. The court struck out the provision. Those surviving same-sex partners of contributors who died from April 17, 1985 to December 31, 1997, may now receive Canada Pension Plan survivorship benefits.

The Court also held that the provision disallowing benefits to same-sex partners for the period before July 2000 was unconstitutional.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court of Canada did not suspend the 12-month restriction on arrears of benefits. The Court dealt with this question as an issue of remedy, rather than one of rights. In deference to Parliament, which had acted in good faith, the court declined to award benefits for any period exceeding 12 months prior to an application for benefits. The effect of this is that the Canada Pension Plan will not be required to pay survivorship benefits to same-sex partners in respect of any period before July 1999 (one year before the amendments came into effect).

The Supreme Court of Canada also refused to make any award to the estates of those same-sex partners who died before the date arguments were concluded in the Ontario Superior Court.

As an estate lawyer, I find this part of the judgment especially interesting. Mr. Justice LeBel and Mr. Justice Rothstein characterize an estate as “just a collection of assets and liabilities of a person who has died. It is not an individual and it has no dignity that may be infringed.” With respect to section 15 of the Charter, “The use of the term ‘individual’ in s. 15 (1) was intentional. For these reasons, we conclude that estates do not have standing to commence s. 15(1) Charter claims. In this sense, it may be said that s. 15 rights die with the individual.”

Sadly, one of the representative plaintiffs, Mr. Hislop, died before this judgment. Because he was alive on the day final arguments were made in the Ontario Court of Justice, his estate will be eligible for the benefits he fought for.

British Columbia 2007 Provincial Budget's Theme is Housing

British Columbia's Minister of Finance Carol Taylor released the 2007 Budget today. The government emphasized a number of measures intended to reduce housing costs. Here is a summary from the budget:

Budget 2007 responds to the housing challenges of a growing economy and takes a major step towards every British Columbian having access to a safe, appropriate and affordable place to live, by:

increasing the number of year-round shelter beds for people who are homeless;
providing 24/7 staffing in transition houses for women and their children leaving abusive relationships;

increasing income assistance shelter rates by $50 per month;
converting up to 750 social housing units to supportive housing to better meet the specialized needs of seniors and people with disabilities;

increasing the Rental Assistance Program threshold to $28,000, making over 20,000 families potentially eligible for cash benefits;

establishing the $250 million Housing Endowment Fund as a legacy that will provide an estimated $10 million a year in earnings available to fund new innovative ways of meeting housing challenges;

enhancing the First Time Home Buyers' Program by raising the threshold to $375,000 across the province;

raising the threshold for the Home Owner Grant and extending eligibility to lower income seniors, regardless of their home's assessed value;

allowing people to defer their property taxes starting at age 55, rather than 60;
making it more affordable for families to call British Columbia home by cutting personal income taxes by 10 per cent for people earning up to $100,000;

creating up to 250 additional units under the Provincial Homelessness Initiative; and
improving housing conditions for Aboriginals who live off-reserve.

Federal Tax Changes to Income Trusts, Age Credits and Pensions

Yesterday's announcement by the Federal Minister of Finance, Mr. Jim Flaherty, that the Government will be making significant changes to the way income trusts are taxed has caused quite a stir on the financial markets and in the House of Commons. I enjoy the political show, but I am most interested in how the changes might affect some of the estate planning I do with my clients.

I expect that I will have some clients ask me whether any of these changes will affect their family trusts, or trusts provisions in their wills. I can't be sure of the answer yet. But, after reading the press release, I expect that the changes will not change the way personal trusts are taxed.

The way the Canadian income tax system works, when a corporation earns income, the income is taxed at a corporate rate. When the corporation pays out some of its profits to the shareholders, the shareholders are taxed again. For large corporations, the rates of taxation are such that the combined amount of corporate tax and the tax the shareholders pay, may be more than if all of the income were earned directly by the shareholders, instead of through a corporation.

By using a trust rather than a corporation, businesses were able to give some of their investors a better after-tax return. The trust distributed profits to investors, and the investors paid all of the tax on their income, but the trust didn't have to pay any tax on the income the trust distributed. The tax liability was flowed through to the investors. Instead of the two layers of tax with a corporation, income earned by an income trust was taxed once.

The Federal Government is proposing to tax the income trusts and other flow through entities such as some partnerships in a similar manner to large corporations. To the extent that the income trusts distribute their profits to investors, the income trusts will have to pay tax at corporate tax rates, and the income distributed to investors will be taxed as dividends.

Fortunately, it appears from the Department of Finances press release that the new tax treatment will only apply to trusts that meet several conditions including being "listed on a stock exchange or other public market." If so, this should not affect personal trusts, such as family trusts, and trusts created in wills.

The Minster also announced a couple of tax changes to benefit seniors--perhaps to make the rest of the announcement more palatable. The good news includes, to quote the press release, "An increase in the Age Credit Amount by $1000 from $4,066 to $5,066 effective January 1, 2006. This will benefit low and middle-income seniors."

Additionally, the Government plans to allow income splitting of some pension and retirement income between spouses or common law partners. This will benefit couples who have significant disparities in their pension or retirement income, by allocating some of the income to the person who is in the lower tax bracket. According to the press release,

For individuals aged 65 years and over, eligible pension income includes lifetime annuity payments under a registered pension plan, a registered retirement savings plan or a deferred profit-sharing plan and payments out of or under a registered retirement income fund. For individuals under 65 years of age, eligible pension income includes lifetime annuity payments under a registered pension plan and certain other payments received as a result of the death of the individual’s spouse or common-law partner.

For income tax purposes, the amount allocated will be deducted in computing the income of the transferor (the person who actually received the pension income) and included in computing the income of the transferee (the person to whom some or all of the pension income is allocated). Since it will in many cases increase the transferee’s tax payable, both persons must agree to the allocation in their tax returns for the year in question.

Why not allow spouses and common law partners to split all kinds of income?I have never thought it made sense to tax the household in which one spouse earns $80,000 and the other spouse $20,000 more than the household in which each spouse earns $50,000.

How Seniors May Defer Property Taxes in B.C.

The cost of property taxes can be significant for seniors on fixed incomes. This can be particularly troublesome for homeowners whose property values have gone up significantly more than the average increases in values, such as owners of lakefront or oceanfront property in British Columbia. There are many seniors who have had modest incomes and lifestyles over the years, whose property values and property tax burden have increased considerably. What if a senior can’t afford to pay the property taxes, but doesn’t want to sell his or her home?

In British Columbia, you can enter into an agreement with the provincial government to defer property taxes on your principal residence if you are 60 years or over [since writing this post, the age has been lowered to 55 years or over], have lived in British Columbia for at least one year, are a Canadian Citizen or Permanent Resident, and have at least 25% equity in your property. The agreement is registered against the title to your home, and the provincial government pays the taxes. When the agreement ends, you repay the province the amount of the property taxes, plus interest. The interest is relatively low.

If you wish to sell your house, you must pay the deferred property taxes and the interest. The Land Title Office will not allow the title to be transferred unless the amount owing under the agreement is being paid out. There is an exception for property transferred at death to a surviving spouse.

I was advised by a representative of the Ministry responsible for the deferment program that the amount must be repaid if an agreement for sale is registered on title.

Persons under 55 with disabilities may also be eligible to defer the property taxes.

Because the interest rates are low, the land tax deferral program may be preferable to a reverse mortgage.

The Ministry of Small Business and Revenue has more information about the property tax deferment program here, and you can read the Land Tax Deferment Act, RSBC 1996, c. 249, here.

Changes to B.C. Shelter Aid for Elderly Residents Program

The British Columbia government recently announced changes to the eligibility criteria for the B.C. Shelter Aid for Elderly Residents Program. I wrote about the program for low income seniors who rent here. The provincial government is removing the ten-year Canadian residency requirment, and a senior who meets the other criteria will be eligible if her or she has lived in British Columbia for at least one year. The government is also increasing the heating allowance by $10 per month. You can read the government press release here.

Canadian Federal Budget Includes Modest Benefits to Seniors and Families with Disabled Children

Today's budget included an increase in the amount seniors can claim under the pension income credit from $1000 to $2000.

I liked what Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said about helping families with children with disabilities:

• Canadians value compassion, respect and inclusiveness. In support of those values, effective July 1st, this government is increasing the maximum annual Child Disability Benefit from $2,044 to $2,300.
• We are also extending this benefit so that more families can qualify.
• We are increasing the maximum amount of the refundable medical expense supplement to $1,000 from $767 for the 2006 taxation year. This supplement improves work incentives for Canadians with disabilities by helping to offset the loss of coverage for medical and disability-related expenses under social assistance when recipients move into the labour force.

Also Mr. Speaker, parents and grandparents of a child with severe disabilities face an important consideration. They need to find a way to secure their child’s long-term financial security when they are no longer able to provide support.
• This government will appoint a small group of experts to examine ways we can help to ease this concern.

On the big ticket tax cuts, this budget represents a triumph of politics over good economics and social policy. The one percent cut in the Goods and Services Tax is politically popular--and no, I am not giving my share of this back. But, the government is increasing taxes on the lowest tax bracket from 15% to 15.5%. The previous Liberal government's cut from 16% to 15% gave all taxpayers an income tax cut, but assisted low income earners the most. A cut in income tax provides greater incentives to work and invest than the cut in consumption taxes. That's my two cents plus GST worth on this topic.

You can read the budget speech here.

British Columbia Housing Subsidy for Low Income Seniors Who Rent

Low income seniors who are renting in British Columbia may be eligible for a subsidy from B.C. Housing through the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters (SAFER) program. According to the B.C. Housing website:

You may be eligible for SAFER if you meet all of the following conditions:

Be 60 years of age or older
Pay rent for your residence
Pay more than 30% of your total income for rent
Not receiving Income Assistance
Be a Canadian Citizen or a Landed Immigrant
Have lived in BC for the full 12 months immediately preceding your date of application
Have lived continuously in Canada for at least 10 years as an adult. [This requirment will be removed.]
If you are eligible, SAFER may subsidize part of the rent that is over 30% of your income. The subsidy is calculated to give the most assistance to people with the least income.

You will not be eligible if any of following are true:

You live in subsidized housing or a residential care facility funded by the Ministry of Health.
You live in co-operative housing and are a shareholder.
You or your family receive a subsidy from income assistance through the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance, excluding the Medical Services Plan.
You do not live in British Columbia.
You have not lived in Canada for 10 continuous years as an adult. [This requirment will be removed.]
You have not lived in British Columbia for the full 12 months immediately preceding your application.

The Website also says that to be eligible, your gross monthly income must not exceed the following:

If you live in the Greater Vancouver Regional District:
Singles $2,333
Couples $2,517
Shared $1,625

If you live in other areas of the Province:
Singles $2,033
Couples $2,217
Shared $1,625

For more information see the B.C. Housing website here.

The website also has a calculator, which you can use to calculate the amount of your subsidy if you are eligible here.

B.C. Government Increases Earnings Exemptions for People with Disabilities

The British Columbia ministry of Employment and Income Assistance has recently increased the amount that people with disabilities receiving income assistance in British Columbia may earn before they lose any of their benefits. According to the Ministry's press release issued last week:

Beginning March 1, 2006, income assistance clients receiving Persons with Disabilities or Persons with Persistent Multiple Barriers support will be able to earn up to $500 each month in addition to receiving their full shelter and support payment from the government, Employment and Income Assistance Minister Claude Richmond announced today.

Today's announcement meets government's commitment to raise the earnings exemption for these clients and marks the third increase since 2001, when the exemption for Persons with Disabilities was $200 per month. The latest increase to the earnings exemption for Persons with Disabilities clients brings it from $400 to $500 per month - a 150 per cent increase overall. This follows government's decision early last year to increase disability assistance by $70 to $856 a month - the highest rate increase in B.C.'s history, providing the third highest rate of assistance available in Canada for persons with disabilities.

The full press release is here.

The announcement is an improvement, but even for those who can earn an additional $500 per month, it would still be pretty tough to get by in British Columbia on $1356 per month total income.

I have previously written about using trusts to provide for disabled beneficiaries here.

Canadian Retirement Income Calculator

I found a retirement income calculator on the Government of Canada, Service Canada website. According to the site,

The Government of Canada has developed this calculator to help you plan for retirement. The calculator takes you step by step through an estimate of the ongoing income you may receive throughout your retirement from:

Old Age Security (OAS);
Canada Pension Plan (CPP) or Quebec Pension Plan (QPP);
employer pension(s);
Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs); and
other sources of ongoing income.

....

It will take you approximately 30 minutes to use the calculator. To get the most out of your session, please make sure that you have as many of the following up-to-date records as possible, including:

CPP Statement of Contributions or QPP Statement of Participation;
financial information about your employer pension (if applicable);
recent RRSP statement(s) (if applicable); and
statements for other savings that will provide ongoing monthly retirement income (annuities, foreign pensions; survivor pensions, etc.).

The calculator is here.

Canadian Provincial Responses to Elder Abuse Chart

The Canadian Centre for Elder Law Studies has published a chart comparing legislative responses to elder abuse in the Canadian provinces. It is available here.