SOMBA K'E/YELLOWKNIFE
One man on social assistance is taking on the Department of Education, Culture and Employment (ECE) after it docked $30 from his monthly food benefit of $701 after he spent three days in the hospital.

Robin Saftner, a Yellowknife resident on social assistance, is appealing the Department of Education, Culture and Employment's decision to dock $30 from his monthly food benefit of $701 because he spent three days in hospital and received meals paid for by the Department of Health and Social Services. Saftner said this policy is discriminatory to clients without dependents, and that it is unreasonable and unfair. - Candace Thomson/NNSL photo

Robin Saftner, who is on social assistance due to a permanent disability, said he was hospitalized for a psychiatric assessment in early February and was given notice that the fund was to be taken off his monthly cheque since he was getting meals in the hospital and didn't have to purchase them.

"I've never heard of something like this before," said Saftner. "I've talked to other people who are on disability and they've never heard of this before … this taking money away for meals in the hospital."

Now, Saftner has launched an appeal with the Registrar of Appeals and after one failed meeting last week, got to speak his mind on Monday night in front of the appeal committee.

"I spoke my mind very nice," he said. "They're going to be going over it and afterward they all got up and shook my hand."

He won't know the outcome of the appeal for some time, but explained what he would like to get out of the process.

"I want my $30 back and I'd like some satisfaction," said Saftner. "It's just the fact that they did this, and maybe I'm standing up for other people too."

According to Section 2.2. of the Social Assistance Policy Manual, people who are in the hospital for “a medical, surgical or psychiatric procedure” are not eligible for social assistance.

The manual also states that while a client is hospitalized, the regional supervisor can grant up to three months of assistance for “shelter, utilities, food and clothing for dependents at home; shelter and utilities for single clients; and the aged or disabled allowance with the clothing and incidental amount if eligible.”

The food benefit for a client without dependents is always docked, according to Jolene Saturnino, director for the territory's income security programs.

"When clients are hospitalized either in their home community or outside of the NWT, their food costs are taken care of by the respected Department of Health and Social Services, and as a result (the client isn't) entitled to food benefits," said Saturnino.

"We definitely acknowledge that other financial expenses continue to accumulate, and we continue to provide assistance for rent, utilities, water, fuel and food for family members who aren't hospitalized, namely children."

Saturnino said ECE, which runs the social assistance program, continues to provide all benefits with the exception of food while the client is hospitalized.

"The purpose of the income assistance program is to provide assistance to a person's basic cost of living," said Saturnino. "In this particular instance, or an instance when someone is hospitalized, that basic need for food is already being paid for by (HSS)."

Saftner, however, said the policy is unreasonable. In his appeal, he writes that “it is also discriminatory.”

"If I had dependents, I would not be getting my cheque reduced for short hospitalization. I allege that the dignity of my person is being violated, my charter right to security of the person is being violated as I am reduced to being in greater need than I already am," he stated.

The department is happy to receive appeals, according to Saturnino, who said it will help clients with the process. There are two levels of appeals under the legislation for the program -- the appeal committee and the Social Assistance Appeal Board.

"It's really important to us to make sure that when a client disagrees with a decision that's made, we encourage them to appeal, to ensure we're following our program as set out in our legislation," she said. "Since April 2013, we've had 16 appeals to the committee level, and two to the appeals board. These are all appeals that have been resolved whether they were in favor of the client, or the department."