Social Housing Reform Act
Letter to the Minister
January 2, 2004
Hon. John Gerretsen, MPP
Minister of Municipal Affairs
777 Bay Street, 17th Floor
Toronto, ON
M5G 2E5
Dear Mr. Gerretsen:
Re: The Social Housing Reform Act
The Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office ("PPAO"), an arm's-length program of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, provides service to persons with serious mental illness across the province. I am writing to advise you of a serious concern facing persons with mental illness in affordable housing units, specifically those rent-geared-to- income units that are governed by the Social Housing Reform Act ("SHRA").
As you know, the previous government made sweeping changes to social housing policy in 2000 with the passage of the SHRA. The legislation governs most subsidized housing units across the province, affecting hundreds of families, many of whom are low-income. People with mental illness are often among the poorest in our communities, most in need of safe, affordable housing units. Stable housing is often identified as one of the key determinants of health, yet for persons with mental illness, finding a home can be illusive. The changes enacted through the SHRA exacerbate the problem, placing our clients at risk of eviction. I have detailed specific issues below to illustrate our concerns:
Requirement to Report Increased Income and Change in Family Composition:- Tenants are required to advise their housing providers of an increased income or change in family size within 30 days. Failure to comply with this rule results in a loss of the rent-geared-to-income subsidy ("RGI"). There is absolutely no flexibility in the rule, nor is there any discretion to reinstate the subsidy once there is compliance.
- As we have seen with reporting requirements in social assistance, such rules significantly impact on persons with mental illness as, during various times in their illness, they may not be able to appreciate the significance of such a rule or be able to comply within the timeframes. Further, a number of clients may not manage their own money and the reporting requirement may be much more onerous for a guardian of property. The harsh results inevitably will lead to economic evictions: evictions for non-payment of rent due to the sudden increase to market rates.
- Where all tenants are away from their premises for more than 4 months for a non- medical reason, they loose the RGI for that unit.
- It is unclear in the Regulations that create this rule what circumstances are considered "medical reasons". While I trust there would be no argument that re-hospitalization in the traditional sense would qualify as "medical" many of our clients may be away from their homes for less clear "medical" reasons. For example, some clients come into contact with the courts as a result of their illness and may receive a "disposition order" as not criminally responsible of an offence, requiring them to remain in hospital for an unspecified period. Other clients may require increased assistance for a period of time and may stay in a non-hospital setting. The rules removing RGI should not be so inflexible that they fail to take such circumstances into account. If our clients are to be successfully reintegrated in the community and supported in their quest for wellness and recovery then we must stop the cycle -- housed? hospitalized? homeless? housed - that often occurs with some of our most vulnerable clients. The Regulations must include a definition of "medical" reason that is broad, flexible and allows clients to retain their home until such time as they are able to return to it, if possible.
- When a tenant is able to pay the maximum rent for a unit as a result of work or other household income for 12 months, the RGI is forfeited, requiring the tenant to pay maximum rent even if they become ill.
- Again, the inflexibility of this rule is highly problematic. Many of our clients work when they are able and many have successful careers. Unfortunately, due to the cyclical nature of many mental illnesses, these clients may be unable to do so for periods of time. The RGI subsidy is a good solution for such clients, allowing them to pay less rent when they are not as well and not working as much. Persons with mental illness should not be discouraged from working and maintaining employment during the times that they are able - they should not face losing a subsidy that may be necessary support when they are ill.
Finding and maintaining housing is essential for persons with mental illness. A number of barriers already affect their ability to do so including inadequate shelter allowances provided by Ontario Works and Ontario Disability. The subsidized housing program must be maintained in a way that provides for sufficient flexibility to ensure that persons with mental illness are not unduly prejudiced by process. The examples noted above may well lead to successful human rights complaints should clients lose their housing - a result that would benefit no one.
We ask that you consider revoking the SHRA with a mind to replacing it with a fair, transparent system that is respectful of the unique needs of our client population. Alternately, we suggest that you reconsider a number of sections, such as those noted above, that are inappropriately inflexible. Regardless, broad education must be immediately implemented to ensure that tenants have all available information regarding their rights and responsibilities. Housing providers should also be made aware of the unique challenges facing their clients with mental illness, provided with education and given the ability to exercise discretion to ensure these vulnerable individuals do not lose their homes.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
________________________
Vahe Kehyayan
Director
Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office
Hon. David Caplan, Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal
Phil Hassen, Deputy Minister, MOHLTC
Mary Kardos Burton, Assistant Deputy Minister, MOHLTC
* The RGI is a mechanism of ensuring affordable housing. Where an RGI subsidy is granted, the tenant is required to pay 30% of his/her family income toward rent, up to a maximum of the "market-rate rent". When the RGI is lost, the tenant must pay maximum rent regardless of the family income amount.