Evaluation of the Legal Aid Program
Appendix C: Comparing Financial Eligibility Guidelines
Comparing the Financial Eligibility Guidelines (FEGs) to other economic measures places them in perspective. Figures 9 and 10 below compare the FEGs for family sizes of between one and four to other economic measures (CPI, average hourly earnings and minimum wage), between 2015 and 2020, for eight provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia; and two territories: Yukon and Nunavut.Footnote 76 The two figures are presented to show whether the differences are affected by family size, as legal aid FEGs are scaled based on family size.
Figure 9. Comparison of Financial Eligibility Guidelines to Other Economic Measures – Single Person 2015 to 2020 Percentage IncreaseFootnote 77
Figure 9. Comparison of Financial Eligibility Guidelines to Other Economic Measures – Single Person 2015 to 2020 Percentage Increase – Text version
| Province / Territory | Financial Eligibility Guideline | Consumer Price Index | Average Hourly Earnings | Minimum Wage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BC | 11 | 10 | 22 | 35 |
| AB | 2 | 8 | 13 | 47 |
| SK | 0 | 5 | 7 | 7 |
| MB | 13 | 9 | 14 | 9 |
| ON | 34 | 8 | 21 | 27 |
| QC | 24 | 6 | 23 | 21 |
| NS | 0 | 6 | 18 | 11 |
| YK | 13 | 6 | 6 | |
| NU | 0 | 11 | 18 |
The only notable difference in the comparison of FEGs to other economic measures based on family size is that Manitoba’s FEG for a single person kept up with the other economic measures, while the FEG did not for a family of four.
Figure 10. Comparison of FEGs to Other Economic Measures – Family of Four 2015 to 2020 Percentage IncreaseFootnote 79
Figure 10. Comparison of FEGs to Other Economic Measures – Family of Four 2015 to 2020 Percentage Increase – Text version
| Province / Territory | Financial Eligibility Guideline | Consumer Price Index | Average Hourly Earnings | Minimum Wage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BC | 11 | 10 | 22 | 35 |
| AB | 2 | 8 | 13 | 47 |
| SK | 0 | 5 | 7 | 7 |
| MB | 9 | 9 | 14 | 9 |
| ON | 34 | 8 | 21 | 27 |
| QC | 24 | 6 | 23 | 21 |
| NS | 0 | 6 | 18 | 11 |
| YK | 12 | 6 | 6 | |
| NU | 0 | 11 | 18 |
As shown in Figures 9 and 10, three jurisdictions (Ontario, Quebec, and Yukon) have increased their FEGs well above any of the economic measures used. In Ontario, the financial eligibility criteria for legal aid has increased by 6% each year from 2016-17 to 2019-20. As of January 1, 2016, Quebec increased its FEGs for non-contributory (free) legal aid by 17.75%. Then, when the minimum wage increased in May of 2016 and in subsequent years, both contributory and non-contributory legal aid increased to match the increase in the minimum wage. In addition, in May 2018, the financial eligibility guideline increased by 20% for residents of the Magdalen Islands due to their remoteness.
Two provinces, British Columbia and Manitoba, have been able to increase FEGs to keep pace with inflation (as measured by the provincial CPIs), but the increase is less than the increase in wages.
Some jurisdictions expanded accessibility even if they could not increase their FEGs at all or by much.
- In Saskatchewan, duty counsel for bail hearings no longer has a financial eligibility requirement.
- In Alberta, individuals who qualify for the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped disability benefit are automatically qualified for legal aid representation.
- Nova Scotia has not changed its financial guidelines in some time but noted that they provide a generous interpretation of likelihood of incarceration for particularly vulnerable clients (e.g., mental health challenges, literacy or language issues, potential immigration consequences if convicted).
- Nunavut has a flexible approach for individuals who exceed financial eligibility requirements whereby they can contribute to their legal aid services. This recognizes the fact that legal aid is really the only option for individuals who live in remote communities, as there are no other lawyers available.
Another measure of the responsiveness of legal aid plans’ FEGs to the economic situations of lower-income people is a comparison to the Low-Income Cut-Offs (LICOs). Statistics Canada has developed a method of estimating income levels (LICOs) at which families spend 20 percentage points more than the average family on necessities like food, shelter, and clothing. This level is considered to indicate families that are in “straitened circumstances”.Footnote 81 To provide some examples of the income levels at issue, the legal aid plans in Ontario and Manitoba base their FEGs on before-tax income, which for a single person is $20,225 and $23,000, respectively; the before-tax LICO in 2015 for a single person living in a city with a population of 500,000 or more (e.g., Toronto or Winnipeg) was $24,593. In Saskatchewan, where the FEGs are based on after-tax incomes, the after-tax LICO for a single person living in Saskatoon or Regina was $17,236 in 2015 and the FEG was $11,820.
Table 10 compares the FEGs to the before- and after-tax LICOs for 2015 and 2020 to show changes in FEGs to LICO over time. LICO measures are calculated based on year, family size, and population. The percentages in Table 10 represent the difference between the FEGs and the LICOs. A negative percentage means that the FEGs are below the LICO by that percentage, which means that some individuals whose income is below the LICO do not qualify for legal aid (i.e., they are low-income, but not low-income enough). Conversely, a positive percentage means that the FEGs are above the LICO by that percentage. The change in FEGs to the LICO between 2015 and 2020 is based on comparing the percentage figures in Table 10. If the percentage difference becomes smaller between 2015 and 2020, the FEGs are closer to the LICO, and if the difference becomes larger, the FEGs are further from the LICO. If the percentage difference shifts between 2015 and 2020 from negative to positive, the FEGs have changed from being below the LICO to above the LICO.
In comparing FEGs to LICOs:
- Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and Nunavut had minimal or no change in their FEG rates between 2015 and 2020 while the LICO for all jurisdictions and family sizes has increased (meaning more low-income families are potentially ineligible for legal aid).Footnote 82
- Manitoba increased its FEG rates but not by a sufficient amount to reduce the gap between the FEG and the LICO.
- British Columbia, the only jurisdiction where the FEG is above LICO for most family sizes, raised their FEGs by about 11% between 2015 and 2020 — a change greater than the change in LICO measures — so the percentage difference increased.
- Quebec and Ontario raised their FEGs (by about 24% and 34% respectively), so although the difference is still negative, the gap has become smaller.
| Year | 2015 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population | 500,000+ | 100,000-499,999 | <30,000 | |||||||
| Jurisdiction | BC | AB | MB | ON | QC | SK | NS | YK | NU | |
| Family size | 1 | -13.3% | -25.2% | -7.0% | -75.2% | -28.1% | -45.9% | -34.6% | -0.3% | 61.8% |
| 2 | 1.5% | -25.9% | -13.4% | -21.1% | -30.4% | -52.0% | -22.8% | 0.1% | 61.6% | |
| 3 | 4.6% | -8.7% | -21.5% | -27.8% | -25.9% | -41.4% | -27.5% | -6.8% | 66.8% | |
| 4 | 2.4% | -22.1% | -34.4% | -35.1% | -45.2% | -60.7% | -40.6% | -14.7% | 62.7% | |
| 5 | 6.0% | -28.8% | -40.1% | -35.9% | -73.3% | -43.5% | -16.7% | 60.7% | ||
| 6 | 9.7% | -35.8% | -46.2% | -80.5% | -44.1% | 58.5% | ||||
| 7 | 12.5% | -51.4% | -77.3% | 56.6% | ||||||
| Year | 2020Footnote (1) of Table 10 | |||||||||
| Population | 500,000+ | 100,000-499,999 | <30,000 | |||||||
| Jurisdiction | BC | AB | MB | ON | QC | SK | NS | YK | NU | |
| Family size | 1 | -6.9% | -39.9% | -2.7% | -42.6% | -8.0% | -57.6% | -46.8% | 8.4% | 59.9% |
| 2 | 6.9% | -40.6% | -10.8% | -3.8% | 3.4% | -64.3% | -33.8% | 6.7% | 59.7% | |
| 3 | 10.0% | -21.5% | -20.2% | -4.2% | -6.1% | -52.8% | -39.0% | -0.9% | 65.2% | |
| 4 | 8.0% | -36.4% | -34.1% | -9.9% | -22.4% | -73.7% | -53.3% | -9.4% | 60.9% | |
| 5 | 11.3% | -43.9% | -40.7% | -11.2% | -87.2% | -56.4% | -12.1% | 58.8% | ||
| 6 | 14.9% | -51.8% | -47.6% | -95.1% | -57.1% | 56.5% | ||||
| 7 | 17.5% | -53.6% | -91.6% | 54.6% | ||||||
- Date modified: