Interpreting flawed regulations correctly
Printed From: CanadaStudentDebt.ca
Category: Government Program Problems
Forum Name: Applying for Student Loan Disabilty Relief
Forum Description: help others going through this crazy process!
URL: https://www.canadastudentdebt.ca/forum_posts.asp?TID=71
Printed Date: 26/March/2026 at 10:30pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Interpreting flawed regulations correctly
Posted By: markomeara
Subject: Interpreting flawed regulations correctly
Date Posted: 04/October/2002 at 10:02am
Turns out HRDC is applying the regulations correctly, but the regulations are out of date...
New Letter to Cogliati...
David Cogliati October 4, 2002
HRDC
I am writing to challenge the use of your current policy regarding determination of hardship for disability cases. This is a policy case and should be decided by the Justice Department, or unbiased and objective policy analysts, not your Director of Client Services, who does not have the mandate to look at policy.
The Surplus Income Table regulations were written prior to the changes to Section 178 of the bankruptcy act baring the discharge of student loans. For this reason, the use of these out of date regulations are no longer appropriate, applicable or even reasonable.
This is a further example of regulations that the Task Force on Personal Insolvency referred to as ?draconian and absurd?
The old regulations of the Surplus Income Table treats student loan payments as discretionary spending. Clearly student loans are not discretionary spending as your staff repeatedly states that student loans must be paid back and as per the new regulations in section 178 they are no longer discharged in bankruptcy.
The combination of Industry Canada Regulations, Revenue Canada AND Student Loan regulations must be taken into account in determining the appropriate policy. Furthermore, the Canada Student Financial Assistance Regulations with regard to disability refer to being ?unable to repay the student loan without exceptional hardship? It makes no sense and it is absolutely absurd not include the minimum payment in the determination of eligibility for disability.
|
Replies:
Posted By: markomeara
Date Posted: 05/October/2002 at 2:37pm
what really ticks me off about this use of policy is that basically they are saying "when you owe us, student loans repayment is mandatory and must be paid back, but if we are to pay a benefit to you, then student loans payments are discretionary"
Really, really, an unfair practice!
|
|