Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on denial of Employment and Income Assistance (EIA) funding for driver's licence reinstatement and partial home insurance coverage.

• The Social Services Appeal Board (SSAB) ruled that department policy excluded such expenses, and refused to make exceptions.

• Applicant challenged decisions based on alleged Charter breaches and procedural unfairness.

• Board declined to consider constitutional arguments, citing lack of jurisdiction under the Administrative Tribunals Jurisdiction Act (ATJA).

• Manitoba Court of Appeal found constitutional challenge credible enough to require formal notice to Attorneys General.

• Motions for leave to appeal and extension of time were adjourned pending proper constitutional notice under The Constitutional Questions Act (CQA).

Facts of the case

Ronald Drake, a recipient of Employment and Income Assistance (EIA), brought two appeals against decisions by the Western Region and Western-Brandon Directors of Manitoba’s Department of Families. The first appeal involved a denial of funding for costs required to reinstate his driver's licence, including an assessment by the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba and an ignition interlock device. These costs arose following an administrative sanction in Alberta for refusing to provide a breath sample during a roadside stop in December 2020. Drake had not appealed the Alberta sanction or the resulting Manitoba licence suspension.

Drake argued the expenses were necessary for his mobility and long-term independence from EIA. The department and the SSAB considered these costs outside the scope of the Manitoba Assistance Act and refused the request. He submitted extensive evidence, including materials invoking alleged violations under the Human Rights Code and the Charter, which the board limited or rejected as irrelevant or beyond its jurisdiction.

The second appeal involved a dispute over the EIA program’s refusal to fully reimburse his annual home insurance costs. The department covered only half the expense, as the title to the home was jointly held with his brother, and denied third-party liability coverage based on policy. Drake argued he alone occupied the property and bore the financial burden, but the SSAB upheld the department’s application of policy.

Drake later applied to the Manitoba Court of Appeal for an extension of time and leave to appeal both decisions.

Court of Appeal's findings and outcome

The Manitoba Court of Appeal reviewed Drake's motions and focused on whether his appeal raised an arguable point of law or jurisdictional error, as required under section 23(1) of The Social Services Appeal Board Act. Drake’s core argument was that the SSAB’s refusal to consider his Charter submissions violated his constitutional rights. The court acknowledged that section 2 of the Administrative Tribunals Jurisdiction Act explicitly prevents tribunals like the SSAB from ruling on constitutional matters unless specially designated.

The court found this raised a legitimate constitutional question—whether a provincial law can limit an administrative tribunal’s authority to hear Charter challenges. Since no notice had been provided to the Attorneys General of Canada or Manitoba, as required by section 7(2) of The Constitutional Questions Act, the court adjourned the motions sine die (indefinitely) to allow proper notice to be served.

The Court emphasized that without this procedural step, it could not proceed to assess the merits of Drake’s motions. The outcome of the motions now depends on whether the Attorneys General choose to participate in the constitutional issue raised. If they opt not to be heard, the court will proceed to issue a decision on the motions in due course.The Manitoba Court of Appeal did not issue a final decision on the merits of the case. Instead, it adjourned the motions brought by Mr. Drake (for an extension of time and leave to appeal), pending proper constitutional notice being given to the Attorneys General of Canada and Manitoba.