Does income assistance payments fall within the private insurance exception?

Further, I agree with Mr. Justice Mackenzie and with Mr. Justice Hall that income assistance payments do not fall within the private insurance exception. In Cunningham v. Wheeler, 1994 CanLII 120 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 359, Cory J., speaking for the majority, founded this exception on the fairness inherent in allowing the plaintiff to keep what he has earned. At para. 82, he said: I think the exemption for the private policy of insurance should be maintained. It has a long history. It is understood and accepted. There has never been any confusion as to when it should be applied. More importantly it is based on fairness. All who insure themselves for disability benefits are displaying wisdom and forethought in making provision for the continuation of some income in case of disabling injury or illness. The acquisition of the policy has social benefits for those insured, their dependants and indeed their community. It represents forbearance and self-denial on the part of the purchaser of the policy to provide for contingencies. The individual may never make a claim on the policy and the premiums paid may be a total loss. Yet the policy provides security. (my emphasis) Cory J. acknowledged fairness and justice as the reason for the exception in his dissenting reasons in Ratych v. Bloomer, 1990 CanLII 97 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 940, as well, at 950. Income assistance payments do not fit this mould. They involve no element of individual forbearance, self-denial, or forethought by recipients - they are funded by the taxpayers generally and anyone who satisfies the qualifying criteria is entitled to receive them.