Ontario's Social Benefits Tribunal has made a ruling that has sparked controversy and debate, with many calling for a change in the province's regulations regarding welfare benefits. A migrant living in Canada illegally has been granted access to welfare benefits in Ontario, despite having no legal immigration status in the country.
The case involves a man who came to Canada in 1997 on a work permit, but remained in the country after the permit expired. He supported himself by working cash jobs, which is another violation of the law. In October 2025, he was denied benefits under the Ontario Works program, but a tribunal member, Eric Brown of Waterloo, overturned the decision and granted him access to welfare benefits.
Brown's decision was based on his interpretation of the Ontario Regulation 134/98, which states that visitors and tourists are not eligible for Ontario Works. However, Brown argued that the man did not qualify as either a visitor or a tourist, citing dictionary definitions that he claimed supported his conclusion. He also acknowledged that the man was living in Canada illegally, but still argued that he was eligible for benefits.
The ruling has been widely criticized, with many calling it a misuse of the regulations. Ontario's Premier Doug Ford has denounced the decision, stating that the government will always support people on hard times, but that doesn't include people living in Canada illegally. He has signaled a willingness to change the rules to make it clear that those living in the country illegally are not eligible for benefits.
The decision has broader implications, and could politicize welfare and other social services for illegal migrants. It also raises questions about the use of taxpayer-funded resources to challenge government policies in ways that expand spending commitments.
Ford should examine Ontario's legal aid system, which has been criticized for being activist in nature. If publicly funded legal clinics are using taxpayer money to challenge government policies in ways that expand spending commitments, then taxpayers deserve greater scrutiny of how those funds are being used and whether the system is serving its intended purpose.
