Murray v. Director of Employment and Income Assistance (Man.), 2014 MBCA 110

• Judge: MacInnes, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: June 19, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2014 MBCA 110;(2014), 315 Man.R.(2d) 20 (CA)

Murray v. Director of Employment (2014), 315 Man.R.(2d) 20 (CA);

      630 W.A.C. 20

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.014

Ashley Murray (appellant/applicant) v. Director, Employment and Income Assistance, Seven Oaks (respondent/respondent)

(AI 12-30-07738; 2014 MBCA 110)

Indexed As: Murray v. Director of Employment and Income Assistance (Man.)

Manitoba Court of Appeal

MacInnes, J.A.

December 3, 2014.

Summary:

The Director of Employment and Income Assistance suspended the applicant's income assistance after determining that she was in a common law relationship. The Director referred to s. 5(5) of the Employment Income Assistance Act (EIA Act), but based her decision on the criteria set forth in the Manitoba EIA Administrative Manual, s. 8, Assistance to Single Parents and Children, and, in particular, s. 8.1.4, Common-Law Unions. The applicant appealed. The Social Services Appeal Board dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Director. The applicant moved for leave to appeal.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, per MacInnes, J.A., granted the motion and granted leave to appeal on the following two questions:

"1) Did the Board err in law in its interpretation of s. 5(5) of the EIA Act, in particular, the meaning of 'cohabiting in a conjugal relationship'?

"2) Did the Board err in improperly fettering its discretion when it relied on s. 8.1.4 of the Policy to determine whether the applicant was cohabiting in a conjugal relationship?"

Administrative Law - Topic 2210

Natural justice - Policies or rules adopted by the board or tribunal - Exercise of authority by reference to policy statements - [See Social Assistance - Topic 853 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 8264

Administrative powers - Discretionary powers - Fettering of discretion - [See Social Assistance - Topic 853 ].

Social Assistance - Topic 3

General - Interpretation of legislation - [See Social Assistance - Topic 853 ].

Social Assistance - Topic 852

Claims - Benefits - Entitlement - Bars - Cohabitation - [See Social Assistance - Topic 853 ].

Social Assistance - Topic 853

Claims - Benefits - Entitlement - Bars - Spousal relationship (incl. common law relationship) - The Director of Employment and Income Assistance suspended the applicant's income assistance after determining that she was in a common law relationship - The Director referred to s. 5(5) of the Employment Income Assistance Act (EIA Act) which defined common law relationship, but based her decision on EIA Administrative Policy which had wider criteria for what constituted common law status than the EIA Act - The Social Services Appeal Board confirmed the decision - The applicant moved for leave to appeal - The Manitoba Court of Appeal, per MacInnes, J.A., granted leave on the issues of whether the Board erred in law in its interpretation of s. 5(5) of the EIA Act, in particular, the meaning of "cohabiting in a conjugal relationship" and whether the Board erred in improperly fettering its discretion when it relied on the Policy to determine whether the applicant was cohabiting in a conjugal relationship.

Social Assistance - Topic 950

Claims - Bars - Mother (claimant) living with another person as husband and wife - [See Social Assistance - Topic 853 ].

Cases Noticed:

Harder v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. et al. (2012), 275 Man.R.(2d) 298; 538 W.A.C. 298; 2012 MBCA 20, refd to. [para. 17].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) (2010), 474 A.R. 169; 479 W.A.C. 169; 21 Alta. L.R.(5th) 30; 2010 ABCA 26, revd. [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 21].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 24].

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160; 412 N.R. 66; 2011 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 24].

Manitoba v. Barkman (2007), 213 Man.R.(2d) 273; 2007 MBQB 54, affd. (2008), 225 Man.R.(2d) 166; 419 W.A.C. 166; 2008 MBCA 14, refd to. [para. 58].

Siev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.T.R. Uned. 455; 2005 FC 736, refd to. [para. 75].

Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 884; 306 N.R. 34; 2003 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 84].

Statutes Noticed:

Employment Income Assistance Act, C.C.S.M., c. E-98, sect. 5(5) [para. 14].

Employment and Income Assistance Act Regulations (Man.), Employment and Income Assistance Regulation, Man. Reg. 404/88R, sect. 1(1) [para. 14].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Manitoba EIA Administrative Manual, s. 8, Assistance to Single Parents and Children, s. 8.1.4, Common-Law Unions [para. 14].

Counsel:

B.J. Froese, for the applicant;

A.J. Ladyka, M.A. Bodner and D.A. Johnston, for the respondent.

This Chambers motion was heard on June 19, 2014, before MacInnes, J.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on December 3, 2014.