CITATION: Asgedom v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, 2016 ONSC 1959
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 682/15 DATE: 20160318
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
ASTON, SWINTON AND PATTILLO JJ.
BETWEEN:
YOSEPH ASGEDOM
Applicant
– and –
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO, as Represented by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and The Regional Municipality of Peel
Respondents
In Person
Don Pyper, for the Respondents, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Colleen Grant, for the Respondent, The Regional Municipality of Peel
HEARD at Toronto: March 18, 2016
ASTON J. (ORALLY)
[1] Mr. Asgedom’s judicial review application challenges the December 9, 2015 decision of a reviewing panel set up by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that upheld the Region of Peel’s determination that the applicant is ineligible for an enhanced allowance under Peel’s Investment and Affordable Housing program (“IAH”) and also assistance under Peel’s IAH Short Term Rent Support Program. The applicant challenges the decisions of Peel and the Minister on both procedural and substantive grounds.
[2] The Minister is responsible for establishing the eligibility requirements for IAH and has set those out in IAH Program Guidelines. Municipal partners, such as Peel, are responsible for the implementation and operation of the program. In Peel the IAH program replaced a previous program called the Short Term Rent Support Program, of which Mr. Asgedom was a recipient.
[3] When the IAH program was introduced in 2012, it contained Guidelines for eligibility that included a requirement for applicants to live in self-contained units. Those Guidelines continued in 2015 but it is apparent that the applicant was unaware of that fact until after making his new application in June 2015.
[4] His application met the six eligibility requirements pre-printed on the application form itself but the application form also refers to “important information” on additional eligibility requirements.
[5] When the older program was being phased out Peel invited the applicant to consider applying for assistance under the new program. He submitted his application as just noted and was given notice that he was eligible for the period from July 2015 to July 2016 at least with respect to short term support. His monthly benefit began in July 2015. However, Peel reviewed the terms of his lease and the particulars of his income and then determined that he was not eligible under the program.
[6] Peel had adopted the eligibility requirements established by the Minister and set out in the Guidelines I have referred to. One criterion is that residents must reside in a self-contained unit, meaning that residents in “congregate living arrangements” (i.e. rooming houses) are not eligible.
[7] Peel informed the Minister of its determination of the applicant’s ineligibility and the Minister then issued a new notice to Mr. Asgedom in August 2015 advising him that he was ineligible. That Notice included the reasons for the determination of ineligibility and advised him how to object to the decision.
[8] In September 2015 the applicant filed his objection and a panel was constituted to consider it. In December the panel upheld the original decision.
[9] One of the applicant’s submissions is that living in a self-contained unit is not an eligibility requirement for IAH funding. It is not referred to in the Questions and Answers on Peel’s website and was not referenced in Peel’s invitational letter to him in June 2015. However, we find that the eligibility requirements in the Guidelines do apply to all participants under the IAH program and that the applicant was advised to that effect in July 2015, if not in June 2015. He was not singled out for special or arbitrary treatment.
[10] In our view, the applicant was not denied procedural fairness. When Peel first decided he was ineligible under the Guidelines in July 2015, it set out the reasons in writing and subsequently met with him in person to give him an opportunity to provide further information and discuss his concerns. Only after that meeting did Peel reaffirm its determination and advise the Minister to that effect. When the Minister issued its Notice of Ineligibility in August 2015, it included information on the process by which the applicant could contest the decision. The applicant’s letter of September 15, 2015 was accepted as a formal objection even though it did not comply with the formal requirements. The reviewing panel considered all the documentation of the applicant and determined that he did not live in a self-contained unit.
[11] Though the initial application form completed by the applicant did not indicate that living in a self-contained unit was a requirement for funding eligibility, that requirement is clear in the Guidelines and was explained to the applicant early on and repeatedly. He was given opportunities to object, provide additional information and have his position considered. He received explanations for the decision from both Peel and the Minister. There is no evidence in this case to support a finding that either Peel or the Minister acted in bad faith. The applicant’s challenge based on procedural fairness is therefore without merit.
[12] Turning to the merits of the decision.
[13] The standard of review is reasonableness. The decision, relates to one of the decision-maker’s home statutes, is closely connected to its function, engages the policy and purpose of the legislative program and the government’s program. The decision in this case is more a question of fact and policy administration than a question of law.
[14] The applicant submits that the definition of “self-contained unit” in the Guidelines is ambiguous, conflicted and inconsistent. We disagree. The applicant’s lease, found at Tab “H” of Peel’s Application Record, describes his premises as a “furnished room in a private home … with shared kitchen, bathroom and laundry facilities.” It describes the washrooms and kitchen as “common areas” and the lease limits the use of the laundry facilities to once a week. The applicant’s own letter of July 6, 2015, at Tab “L” of Peel’s Application Record, describes his rent as “room rent” and states “the house (or rooming house) is a shared accommodation located in Mississauga.” (These are the applicant’s own words in his own letter).
[15] The determination that the applicant’s accommodation is not a self-contained unit and the decision to deny him eligibility for funding under the IAH Program, in these circumstances, are both reasonable.
[16] The application is therefore dismissed.
Costs
[17] I have endorsed the Application Record, “For oral reasons given the application for judicial review is dismissed without costs.”
___________________________ ASTON J.
SWINTON J.
PATTILLO J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 18, 2016
Date of Release: March 23, 2016
CITATION: Asgedom v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, 2016 ONSC 1959
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 682/15 DATE: 20160318
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
ASTON, SWINTON AND PATTILLO JJ.
BETWEEN:
YOSEPH ASGEDOM
Applicant
– and –
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO, as Represented by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and The Regional Municipality of Peel
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ASTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 18, 2016
Date of Release: March 23, 2016