A lawyer for the plaintiff says the ruling paves the way for other claimants to seek more assistance
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal ruled this week that a Halifax man’s tent qualifies as a form of accommodation under a provincial income assistance law, making him eligible for a higher tier of benefits reserved for people who rent or own “their accommodation” and meet other criteria, like having a disability.
Bradley Lowe, the plaintiff in the case, passed away in December 2023, so his estate will receive retroactive benefits in his place. But according to Vince Calderhead, one of the Pink Larkin lawyers who represented Lowe and his estate, the impact of the appellate court’s August 5 decision will extend beyond Lowe’s individual case.
The big takeaway from the ruling is that “anyone who’s in the same or similar position – that is to say, living in a tent in Nova Scotia and in receipt or eligible for income assistance – ought to be treated the same way in the sense of being entitled to what’s referred to as the ‘enhanced rate of assistance,’” Calderhead told Canadian Lawyer on Thursday.
Calderhead says he’s already heard from other lawyers in the province with clients who, like Lowe before he died, relied on a modest amount of social assistance. As a result of the appellate court’s decision, those lawyers are now looking to reclassify their clients “into the higher rate of assistance,” Calderhead says.
In a statement, a spokesperson for Nova Scotia’s Department of Opportunities and Social Development said the department is reviewing the ruling and declined to immediately comment.
The case dates back to the fall of 2023, when Lowe, who was then living in a tent at a Halifax park, applied for financial assistance under Nova Scotia’s Employment Support and Income Assistance Act. Under the law, individuals are eligible for benefits if they can demonstrate that their income, assets, and other resources cannot cover their needs.
Regulations related to the legislation set out three tiers of income assistance, each of which offer a different amount of financial benefits. As of September 2023, Lowe had been receiving $380 a month in accordance with the “essentials” tier, which guarantees the lowest amount of assistance. He received an additional $92 each month to cover the costs of his cell phone bill and a medically-prescribed diet.
In October 2023, Lowe applied to increase his rate to $974 in accordance with an “enhanced” tier, which is reserved for applicants who rent or own their accommodations, and either have a disability or a chronic condition that prevents them from working, are fleeing an abusive situation, are 55 years old or older, or a young person who meets other specific criteria.
The Department of Community Services, which has since been renamed the Department of Opportunities and Social Development, rejected his application. A caseworker told Lowe, who suffered from chronic physical and psychological conditions, met the medical requirements for the enhanced tier. However, the caseworker determined he did not meet the accommodations requirement because he was unhoused.
Lowe appealed his decision through internal DCS channels, including an appeal board, all of which upheld the caseworker’s decision. After Lowe died, his estate asked the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia to review the case. In 2025, the court found that while the appeal board’s dismissal of Lowe’s case was unreasonable, he still did not qualify for the enhanced rate of income assistance.
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal partially upheld the 2025 ruling. Like the lower court, the appellate court found that the appeal board unreasonably dismissed Lowe’s case. However, the appellate court concluded that Lowe did qualify for the enhanced rate because his tent met the definition of “accommodation” under the Employment Support and Income Assistance regulations.
The appellate court explained that the Employment Support and Income Assistance Act explicitly lays out its purpose: to assist people in need and facilitate their progress towards independence and self-sufficiency.
The appellate court also found that the meaning of “accommodation” is broad and could “potentially apply to any shelter or housing situation. It rejected an argument by DCS, which asserted that an expansive interpretation of “accommodation” could lead to “absurd” results, such as a woman leaving an abusive relationship and choosing to live in a tent encampment over a transition house to qualify for the enhanced tier of financial assistance. The appellate court said DSC offered no evidence to back up its assertion.
Finding no reason to limit the scope of the regulations, the appellate court said the enhanced rate should be available to individuals living in circumstances similar to Lowe’s.
“It would be ‘reasonable and just’ to do so given the legislative objective of providing shelter assistance to persons in need,” the appellate court said.
In a statement, Emma Arnold, a staff lawyer at PATH Legal who represented an intervenor in the case, the Elizabeth Fry Society of Mainland Nova Scotia, noted the court’s decision “rejects the suggestion that providing increased assistance would encourage people to remain in tents and confirms that individuals should not be denied that support simply because their accommodation is a tent.”
Arnold said this outcome is particularly important in light of “the disproportionate economic hardship experienced by women and its connection to homelessness and gender-based violence,” and noted that “women and gender-diverse people may also face heightened safety risks in tents and other unprotected living arrangements.”
