Law360 Canada (August 20, 2026, 3:00 PM EDT) -- A recent Nova Scotia court ruling could broaden eligibility for certain welfare benefits for homeless people living in tents, trailers or cars in the province, says a lawyer acting for a resident who died while living in a tent in downtown Halifax.

The Aug. 5 Nova Scotia Court of Appeal ruling in Lowe Estate v. Nova Scotia (Department of Opportunities and Social Development), 2026 NSCA 61 involved the late Bradley Lowe — an unemployed man who had been living in a tent in Victoria Park.

The crux of the case is the fact Lowe had been denied an “enhanced” disability benefit because he was deemed “unhoused” by welfare officials.

In the end, the province’s Appeal Court found he was unjustly denied that benefit.

Unfortunately, Lowe — reportedly the father of a young son — did not live long enough to see this legal victory, having died not long after launching his legal challenge.

The case comes as jurisdictions throughout Canada continue to grapple with a housing crisis. Case in point: it is not uncommon in major urban centres to find homeless people living in tents. In many places, local governments have struggled to control an increasing emergence of encampments.

Lowe’s case dates back to 2023, when he applied to Nova Scotia’s then-Department of Community Services (DCS) for income assistance under a regime governed by the province’s Employment Support and Income Assistance Act.

The court notes that eligibility requirements stipulate the applicant must be a “person in need” and that their needs exceed their income, assets and other resources.

As of September 2023, Lowe was receiving income assistance in the form of an “essentials rate” of $380 per month. (He also received a relatively small “special needs” allowance for dietary needs and his cellphone.)

The next month, the 30-year-old requested an “enhanced rate” of $947 on the basis that he had a disability.

On his application, he stated that he owned his own accommodation — his tent.

The Act’s regulations state the enhanced rate applies to someone who rents or owns their accommodation and that they, among other things, must have a disability or a “chronic mental, cognitive or physical condition that limits participation in employment services.”

A DCS caseworker denied Lowe’s request for the enhanced rate because he was “unhoused.”

On Lowe’s behalf, a lawyer requested an internal review of that decision. A review was done but the caseworker’s decision was upheld. Lowe then turned to the province’s Assistance Appeal Board, which reserved its decision.

But on Dec. 13, 2023, Lowe died of a drug overdose.

The board dismissed Lowe’s appeal and upheld the DCS decision denying him the enhanced rate.

Lowe’s estate — reportedly made up of his mother — took up the cause and turned to the courts. A judge with Nova Scotia’s Supreme Court found the board’s decision to be unreasonable. However, he went on to form his own interpretation of the Act, and in doing so found Lowe did not meet the accommodation requirements for the enhanced rate.

Lowe’s estate appealed, arguing the judge erred in his interpretation of the Act and its regulations.

The Appeal Court faced two issues: Was it reasonable for the board to deny Lowe the enhanced rate? And was the judge correct in determining Lowe did not meet the regulation’s eligibility requirements for the enhanced rate?

In the end, Chief Justice Michael Wood, with Justices Cindy Bourgeois and Elizabeth Van den Eynden in agreement, decided that while the judge was right to find the board’s decision to be unreasonable, he erred in his interpretation of the rules regarding eligibility.

The term “accommodation” should include Lowe’s tent, found Chief Justice Wood.

“The ordinary meaning of the word ‘accommodation’ is broad,” he wrote. “It could potentially apply to any shelter or housing situation. The purpose of the Act and Regulations is to provide assistance, including money for shelter, for everyone in need. Mr. Lowe met the definition of a person in need. His shelter was the tent in which he was residing.”

The top judge found there to be “no dispute” that Lowe “was residing in a tent which he owned” at the time he applied for the enhanced rate.

George Franklin, one of two lawyers acting pro bono for Lowe, spoke about the legal significance of the ruling.

“In Nova Scotia, the takeaway is that if your living situation isn’t as simple as renting an apartment or living in a home — let’s say you’ve got a more tenuous form of accommodation, like you’re living in a tent — you should be applying for the enhanced rate,” said Franklin, a partner with Pink Larkin. “There are other conditions people [must] meet to get the enhanced rate, but people need to know that just because they live in a tent, it doesn’t mean that they don’t own their accommodation.… The enhanced rate is now more broadly available — or it should’ve always been more broadly available, it’s just now recognized that that’s the case.”

Franklin said the ruling could apply to homeless people whose accommodation is a tent, trailer or car — provided they own or rent that accommodation. However, each situation would be case-specific, he said.

“It is specific to living in an accommodation and owning that accommodation, and so it doesn’t have to be a tent. You would have to, I guess, factually show that it’s an accommodation, which is a broad word. In this case, it was a tent. This doesn’t automatically mean that anyone who is homeless can receive the enhanced rate if they meet all the other qualifications, but it does mean that if you’re living in what might broadly be considered an accommodation that you rent or own, that you may qualify and you should apply.”

Franklin also said other jurisdictions should take heed of the ruling.

“More broadly, I think across the country the message is people who are involved in these types of cases, looking at who is entitled to certain regimes of social assistance, should take a long, hard look at their legislative schemes too to make sure that the governments in their respective provinces are meeting the requirements of the language of the legislative scheme.”

A request for comment sent to government lawyer Kevin Kindred was not returned.

A spokesperson with the Department of Opportunities and Social Development told local media the department was reviewing the decision. They did not say whether the province would attempt an appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada, or if it will be changing the regulations.

A request for comment from the department was not immediately received.

At least one local news report suggests the Appeal Court’s ruling could end up applying to between 200 and 300 people in the province.

Apropos of that, the ruling has reportedly spurred the Dalhousie Legal Aid Service to prepare a guide encouraging the province’s homeless to apply for expanded welfare benefits.

A request for information from the legal aid service was not answered by press time.

If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for Law360 Canada, please contact Terry Davidson at t.davidson@lexisnexis.ca or 905-415-5899.