Cash Stop Loans v. Dickson Date:, 2014 BCPC 273

Citation: Cash Stop Loans v. Dickson Date: 20141125 2014 BCPC 0273 File No: 40222 Registry: Kamloops IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Small Claims Court) BETWEEN: CASH STOP LOANS INC. CLAIMANT AND: JAMIE DICKSON DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE L.S. MARCHAND Appearing for the Claimant: S. Craddock Appearing for the Defendant: C. Lynch Place of Hearing: Kamloops , B.C. Date of Hearing: November 10, 2014 Date of Judgment: November 25, 2014 INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION [1] On August 15, 2014, Cash Stop Loans Inc. (“Cash Stop”) obtained a Default Judgment in the amount of $509.46, includingcosts, against Jamie Colleen Dickson. On August 20, 2014, Cash Stop served a Garnishing Order (After Judgment) on the TD CanadaTrust (“TD”) branch on Tranquille Road in Kamloops in the amount of $580.46, which included further costs of $71 for the attachmentproceedings. [2] There were sufficient funds in Ms. Dickson’s TD account on August 20, 2014 to satisfy the Garnishing Order but TD did nothonour the Garnishing Order on the basis that the funds in Ms.

Dickson’s account were income assistance benefits and, therefore,exempt from attachment. Cash Stop seeks a Garnishing Order Absolute against TD to compel TD to make good on the Garnishing Orderwhich, according to Cash Stop, TD should have honoured. ANALYSIS [3] Section 29(1) of the Employment and Assistance Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 40, provides as follows: 29.

(1) Income assistance, hardship assistance and supplements are exempt from garnishment, attachment, execution or seizure under anyAct. [4] The issue before me is whether s. 29(1) of the Employment and Assistance Act continues to exempt income assistance benefitspayable under the Act from attachment once the benefits are deposited into a recipient’s bank account. [5] I am not aware of any case law directly on point but there are cases which interpret analogous exemptions in ss. 65(1) and (1.1)of the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8 and ss. 36(1) and (1.1) of the Old Age Security Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.

O-9 which“exempt” benefits under those Acts “from seizure or execution, either at law or in equity.” [6] In Metropolitan Toronto (Municipality) v. O’Brien, (ON SC), [1995] O.J. No. 4896 (S.C.) and Szalavetz v.Gordon, 2008 QCCQ 11698, the courts held that CPP and OAS benefits that can be identified as such do not lose their character and arenot subject to attachment even after they are deposited into a recipient’s bank account. [7] There is also a strong public policy rationale which supports this conclusion in the specific context of income assistancebenefits. In Constantini v. Fischer, [1982] B.C.J.

No. 1540 (QL) (SC), Murray J. found that a Garnishing Order could not attachbenefits to be paid by the Province to a recipient under predecessor legislation. Murray J. found that such benefits were not “debts,obligations or liabilities” within the meaning of the Court Order Enforcement Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 158.

Relevant to the present case,Murray J. also noted that it would be contrary to public policy to allow income assistance benefits to be used to satisfy a debt rather thanto provide the bare necessities of life for the recipient as intended by the legislation. [8] In this case, I accept the information provided by Cash Stop’s representative that the Province paid income assistance benefitsto recipients on August 20, 2014 and the information provided by TD’s representative that the $592.91 in Ms.

Dickson’s account onAugust 20, 2014 was in fact comprised of her income assistance benefit. [9] Applying the reasoning in the O’Brien and Szalavetz decisions, as supported by the policy rationale articulated in Constantini,I find that the funds which were in Ms. Constantini’s TD account on August 20, 2014 were exempt from attachment. [10] Accordingly, I dismiss Cash Stop’s application for a Garnishing Order Absolute against TD. _______________________ L.S. Marchand Provincial Court Judge