Webber v. Family Benefits Appeal Board (N.S.), (1983) 56 N.S.R.(2d) 606 (TD)

• Judge: Grant, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: February 16, 1983
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1983), 56 N.S.R.(2d) 606 (TD)

Webber v. Family Benefits (1983), 56 N.S.R.(2d) 606 (TD);

    117 A.P.R. 606

MLB headnote and full text

Webber v. Family Benefits Appeal Board

(S.H. No. 40718)

Indexed As: Webber v. Family Benefits Appeal Board (N.S.)

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Trial Division

Grant, J.

February 25, 1983.

Summary:

A woman received benefits under the Family Benefits Act until December 1, 1980, when she became ineligible. She reapplied on February 1, 1981, receiving lower benefits because new regulations established a new schedule of benefits. She appealed to the Family Benefits Appeal Board. The appeal was dismissed. She submitted that the new schedule of benefits was ultra vires and applied for certiorari to quash the Boards' decision.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 5501

Equality and protection of the law - General principles and definitions - "Equality before the law" defined - The Family Benefits Act had one schedule of benefits for applications before July 1, 1980, and another schedule for applications after that date - An applicant submitted that the two schedules created eligibility based on time, not need, which denied her equality before the law - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that the existence of two schedules of benefits did not deny the applicant equality before the law, because all applications after July 1, 1980, were treated equally - See paragraphs 30 to 42.

Civil Rights - Topic 5501

Equality and protection of the law - General principles and definitions - "Equality before the law" defined - The Family Benefits Act had one schedule of benefits for applications before July 1, 1980, and another schedule for applications after that date - An applicant submitted that the two schedules created eligibility based on time, not need, making eligibility for benefits arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable, and against public policy - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that the legislation creating two schedules of benefits was not ultra vires for those reasons - See paragraphs 30 to 43.

Cases Noticed:

Warwick v. Minister of Community and Social Services (1978), 5 R.F.L.(2d) 325, refd to. [para. 24].

LeBlanc et ux. v. City of Transcona, [1973] 6 W.W.R. 484, refd to. [para. 31].

Re Lofstrom and Murphy et al. (1971), 22 D.L.R.(3d) 120, refd to. [para. 32].

Bliss v. Attorney General of Canada, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 183; 23 N.R. 527, refd to. [para. 33].

MacKay v. R. (1980), 114 D.L.R.(3d) 393, refd to. [para. 33].

Ayala v. R. (1979), 97 D.L.R.(3d) 660, refd to. [para. 35].

Remis v. Fontaine, [1951] 2 D.L.R. 461, refd to. [para. 36].

Statutes Noticed:

Family Benefits Act, S.N.S. 1977, c. 8, sect. 3 [para. 17]; sect. 4 [para. 18]; sect. 18 [para. 16].

Family Benefits Act Schedule "B" Regulations, sect. 2 [para. 15].

Family Benefits Act Schedule "A" Regulations, sect. 41 [para. 16].

Counsel:

Andrew Pavey, for the applicant;

Alison Scott, for the respondents.

This case was heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on February 16, 1983, in Chambers before GRANT, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on February 25, 1983.