The Government of the Northwest Territories has been ordered to pay $15,000 to three NWT residents after a human rights adjudicator ruled its income assistance food voucher program was discriminatory.
Last year, a Tuktoyaktuk woman filed a human rights complaint claiming the territory’s method of delivering income assistance through food vouchers – not cash or cheques – made her feel "hurt and humiliated."
The food voucher system, applied in Tuktoyaktuk, was a departure from the GNWT’s previous model that saw residents relying on income assistance receive payments directly.
But with concerns from community members that children were going hungry under the direct payment model, the territorial government moved to adopt the food voucher method.
The woman, joined by two other complaints, argued the new system was discriminatory. In November 2017, an adjudicator with the NWT Human Rights Adjudication Panel agreed, ruling the voucher system was based on the “suspicion that recipients in Tuktoyaktuk were spending money on drugs and alcohol instead of food for children,” and that the policy was rooted in generalizations and stereotypes rather than fact.
The decision also stated the voucher system failed to provide “individualized” assessments of the needs of people on income assistance.
In February, in wake of the ruling, the GNWT returned to its previous direct payment model.
Despite reverting back its standard approach, a decision, handed down on July 5, ruled the GNWT must still provide compensation for the three complainants.
The territory must pay each complainant $5,000, for injury to “dignity, feelings and self-respect.”
The GNWT must also “refrain in the future from discriminating against income assistant recipients based on stereotypes.”
In the decision, the NWT Human Rights Adjudication Panel adjudicator acknowledged the GNWT was acting in “good faith” by adopting the policy, and that discrimination occurred “indirectly and unintentionally.”
“Stereotypes underlying the policy originated with community leaders who were trying to grapple with legitimate social issues not directly related to income assistance,” stated the adjudicator.