Toronto staff have quietly ended a $900,000 city fund that helps low-income seniors and disabled people pay medical expenses, even though some councillors insist council voted to save it during last winter’s budget debate.

“I’m not sure how a different interpretation of that decision was made, but it clearly has to come back to council,” said Councillor Janet Davis “This problem has to get fixed.”

Last September, council narrowly voted against saving the Hardship Fund from possible elimination in the 2012 budget.

But community outrage over axing the fund that helps about 1,300 of the city’s most vulnerable people pay for prosthetics, prescription drugs and dentures, prompted a majority of councillors to reconsider.

Under a motion approved by the city’s executive committee in January and rubber-stamped by council later that month, city staff were directed to save the fund until July 1, ask the province to assume the cost for the rest of the year and “report back as appropriate.”

If the province didn’t pick up the cost, council directed staff to continue funding the program until the end of the year “from the Toronto Employment and Social Services net budget.”

“My understanding is that we fixed the Hardship Fund and we asked (staff) to find the money if the provincial government didn’t deliver,” said Davis (Ward 31, Beaches East York). “So my assumption was that the program was continuing.”

Councillor Joe Mihevc, is also puzzled.

“If staff cannot read plain English, then they are sadly misinformed and we will have to take this to council to make sure they are appropriately informed,” said Mihevc (Ward 22 St. Paul’s).

Community groups are equally dismayed.

“This is quite shock,” said Beth Wilson of the Social Planning Toronto which waged a high profile campaign last fall to keep the fund. “We were all under the impression that it had been saved, at least until the end of this year.”

But Heather MacVicar, general manager for Toronto employment and support services, said Davis and others who believed the fund had been saved are wrong.

“It shouldn’t come as a surprise to the councillors because they were there, they were part of the debate and by no means has it been saved,” she said in an interview Wednesday.

“And if the community took that as it’s been saved, that interpretation was not correct,” she said.

Council only agreed to continue supporting the fund until July 1, while the city negotiated with the province, she said. Any city funding beyond that would be a “stop-gap,” she said.

There is nothing in the council decision that says the fund would be maintained at current levels, she added.

It is the second time that councillors are disputing a staff interpretation of a contentious budget issue.

Earlier this year, seven city pools councillors thought they had saved, turned out to be in peril. Council has since ensured they will remain open.

The Hardship Fund was established in 1999 for low-income people who are not eligible for welfare. According to city documents it “serves primarily poor seniors who face potentially life threatening situations if they cannot obtain needed medical items.”

At least two Torontonians who rely on the fund have already been told by city staff to seek help elsewhere.

James Kelly, who lost his job and his drug benefits last summer, had been receiving help through the fund to pay for his $1,200 monthly HIV drugs.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“I don’t know where to turn,” said Kelly, who has contacted several staff in the city’s employment and social services department as well as a city councillor. “All I know is that I need my drugs to stay alive.”

A Toronto senior with multiple sclerosis who lives on $1,200 a month, had been getting help to pay for incontinence products which cost $700 every four months. But she has also been cut off and was told last week to contact charitable organizations for help.

“There must be many elderly people, more disabled that me, that have no idea that this is happening,” said the 71-year-old woman who did not want her name published due to her medical condition. “Without this help many people with incontinence problems will be subject to bladder and skin infections or worse. This is simply inhumane.”

MacVicar said most people who access the Hardship Fund for one-time medical items such as prosthetics, wheelchairs and eyeglasses will be considered under a similar fund available for people on social assistance.

But since the province has capped funding for that program to $19 million this year — down from $22 million the city spent last year — she is not sure where the extra money will come from.

People who need on-going help for prescription drugs and incontinence products aren’t covered under that program, but may be able to get limited one-time funding under another emergency welfare fund.

“We are handling this on a case-by-case basis,” she said. “But we have a real funding problem.”

Councillor Shelley Carroll, said the city’s powerful executive committee crafted the motion to save the Hardship Fund because they understand its importance.

What’s tragic, she said, is that in May, the city learned its budget surplus for 2011 had ballooned to $292 million, about $140 million more than anticipated. And yet instead of using some of those funds to shore up programs like the Hardship Fund, the executive committee has opted to do nothing until September.

“This is ridiculous,” she said. “There is a gap in this city and only the hardest hearted — and they are a minority — want us to say no to the woman who needs incontinence products, or prescription drugs, or prosthetics.”

Council budget motion on Hardship Fund

City Council request the General Manager of Toronto Employment and Social Services to advise the province that the City will fund the Hardship Fund until July 1, 2012 and request provincial funding to support future hardship fund applications. In the event that additional provincial funding is not secured, any additional funding needed for the balance of the year be funded from the Toronto Employment and Social Services net budget.

Source: City Council Approved Budget Jan 17, 2012