Appeal planned after challenge of Sask. government's disability program dismissed

The organization behind a legal challenge against the Saskatchewan Assured Income for Disability (SAID) program plans to launch an appeal after its lawsuit was dismissed.

Peter Gilmer, a minister with the Regina Anti-Poverty Ministry (RAPM) confirmed the organization will appeal the decision.

"We know that there are going to be ongoing implications for people that we work with, but we're hoping that this would be heard by the Court of Appeal in the fall and that ultimately we will have a decision in our favour," Gilmer said in an interview Tuesday.

RAPM filed its lawsuit in March 2023 and it was decided by the Court of King's Bench in February 2024.

The lawsuit alleged that the Saskatchewan Assured Income for Disability (SAID) program disproportionately discriminates against disabled people compared to others.

Under the SAID program, seniors are required to take money from their Canada Pension Plan at the age of 60, well ahead of the standard of 65. The money they get this way is then counted against their SAID benefits.

Gilmer said in 2024 that the policy puts people in an impossible position. He described the program as a "clawback" of federal money earned by the recipients.

Lawyers representing the RAPM argued that people forced to access CPP while on SAID don't see an actual increase in their day-to-day income.

Justice Colin D. Clackson sided with the provincial government.

In a decision issued earlier this month and published on Tuesday, Clackson ruled SAID users not receiving an increase in income was "pure speculation" by the RAPM.

Clackson also ruled that people not receiving social assistance are not constrained by SAID.

"The only distinction between those who are constrained by the legislation and those who are not is the receipt of social assistance benefits," Clackson wrote.

New Brunswick and Saskatchewan are the only provinces that make withdrawal mandatory at age 60.

RAPM's lawyers relied upon a 2020 decision from the Manitoba Court of Appeal that said the practice violated Section 15 of Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which affords equality and equal protection under the law.

"We believe that vast majority of provinces are actually handling this this correctly and that Saskatchewan is the outlier on this," Gilmer said.

Justice Clackson was not persuaded by the reasoning in the Stadler decision.

He ruled that even if the legislation does create a distinction, it is not discriminatory. As a result, Clackson wrote the legislation does not violate the equality rights laid out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The government did not seek costs in the lawsuit and Clackson awarded none.