In this section you will find:
Nearly every province and territory offers financial assistance for people with disabilities, either through a separate social assistance program or through a significant benefit within a social assistance program. [For more on the programs and benefits offered in each jurisdiction, who receives them, and how much is provided, consult the relevant sections in Maytree’s annual Social Assistance Summaries and Welfare in Canada reports.]
This spotlight brings together the definitions of disability used to determine eligibility for social assistance benefits across the country, considers the relationship between definitions and caseloads, and explores how these findings are relevant to reforming the Canada Disability Benefit (CDB) and Disability Tax Credit (DTC).
Definitions of disability vary widely across jurisdictions
In addition to a financial test, eligibility for disability-related assistance through social assistance is based on meeting a formal definition of disability that typically consists of two parts:
- Evidence of an impairment confirmed by a medical practitioner. [Challenges accessing a medical practitioner is a key barrier to accessing disability programs. Many prospective applicants do not have a primary care physician, experience long wait times for specialists, face barriers to travelling (particularly in rural areas), and cannot afford the cost associated with filling out forms.]
- Evidence that the impairment leads to limitations engaging in activities of daily living or the ability to work.
The specific definitions of disability vary widely across, and even within, jurisdictions. Our review of these definitions suggests they can be analyzed by considering three consistent components:
- The severity of the impairment;
- The duration of the impairment; and
- The impact of the impairment on daily living or work.
A full summary of the definitions of disability used in social assistance programs across Canada can be found in the appendix. It lists both the legal definitions drawn directly from legislation or regulations, as well as colloquial definitions of disability drawn from the descriptions used elsewhere in Maytree’s Social Assistance Summaries report. These descriptions are validated annually by officials in each jurisdiction.
For example, New Brunswick’s Extended Benefits Program defines disability as “a major physiological, anatomical or psychological impairment … that is likely to continue indefinitely without substantial improvement and that causes the person to be severely limited in activities pertaining to normal living.” Here, the severity of the impairment is specified as major, the duration is indefinite, and the impact is a severe limitation to activities of normal living.
Table 1 (below) offers a rough comparison of the breadth or narrowness of each jurisdiction’s definition of disability using the three components identified.
The terms significant, substantial, and severe have legal interpretations that may vary between jurisdictions or even between statutes in the same jurisdiction. In general, however, the threshold for a significant or substantial impairment is lower than one that is severe. For example, the Federal Disability Reference Guide places disabilities on a scale from mild to severe, showing how the latter term is understood to mean a particularly strong intensity of impairment. [Government of Canada. (2013). Federal Disability Reference Guide.] The term major, used only in New Brunswick’s definition, is less commonly used in this context. We choose to classify it as more akin to severe than it is to substantial or significant.
Our analysis shows that most jurisdictions employ a definition that is comparatively restrictive in at least one of the three components.
Table 1: Comparison of disability definitions used in social assistance programs and benefits across the country by severity, duration, and impact of the impairment, with language drawn from legal definitions
Notes: The colours are used to distinguish between more (in light blue) and less (in orange) inclusive definitions of disability across the jurisdictions.
- AB has two programs with different disability definitions:
- The Barriers to Full Employment (BFE) category of Alberta’s Income Support program provides a slightly higher basic benefit than those provided to recipients considered employable.
- The Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH) provides recipients with a higher flat-rate living allowance that is not linked to household size.
- MB has two programs with different disability definitions:
- The Barriers to Full Employment (MBFE) category of Manitoba’s Employment and Income Assistance program provides a slightly higher basic benefit than those provided to recipients considered employable.
- The Manitoba Supports for Persons with Disabilities (MSPD) program provides recipients with higher benefits than the MBFE category.
- QC is revising its definition of severe limitation as of April 2026.
- NL does not offer a disability program or benefit through social assistance. In July 2025, it introduced a disability benefit that is tied to eligibility for the federal Disability Tax Credit.
Caseload data supports our findings on the differences between definitions
Although the definition of disability is not the only factor determining program take-up, the proportion of the population that accesses a disability benefit should correlate with how broad or narrow the definition of disability is in each jurisdiction.
Table 2 shows the total average monthly caseloads receiving a disability benefit through social assistance in each jurisdiction in fiscal year 2024-25 and cases as a percentage of the estimated population aged 18 to 64 on July 1, 2024. [Counting cases rather than beneficiaries provides a more accurate estimate of people assessed as having a disability. This is because, in some jurisdictions, beneficiaries include members of the family unit who are not assessed as having a disability. However, counting cases results in a slight underestimate because families with more than one person assessed as having a disability will be counted as a single case.]
Table 2: Average monthly cases on a disability benefit through social assistance in each jurisdiction in 2024-25, sorted by caseload as a percentage of population
Notes:
- BC data does not include the 3,777 average monthly cases in the Persons with Persistent Multiple Barriers (PPMB) category of Income Assistance, which the BC Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction does not consider to be a disability program. Eligibility for PPMB requires that the recipient has a health condition that has continued for at least one year and is likely to continue for at least two more years or has occurred frequently in the past year and is likely to continue for at least two more years, and that seriously impedes the person’s ability to search for, accept, or continue in employment. [Government of British Columbia. Persons with Persistent Multiple Barriers.]
- NT data refers to the Income Assistance for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities (IASPD) program introduced in July 2024. We use the monthly average cases from July 2024 to June 2025.
- MB data is a sum of cases for two programs: Manitoba Supports (MSPD) and Employment and Income Assistance – Medical Barriers to Full Employment (MBFE). See the Manitoba section for a breakdown.
- AB data is a sum of cases for two programs: Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH) had 77,647 cases, and Barriers to Full Employment (BFE) client sub-type 43 “severe handicap” had 360 cases. BFE client sub-type 42 “medical or multiple barriers” is not included because the data does not allow us to differentiate those with medical barriers from other barriers unrelated to disability.
- NS data refers to the Disability Supplement introduced in May 2024. We use the monthly average cases from May 2024 to March 2025.
- QC data is a sum of the cases for two programs that use the same definition of disability: Social Solidarity (solidarité sociale) and Basic Income (revenu de base). See the Quebec section for a breakdown.
- NL does not offer a disability program or benefit through social assistance. In July 2025, it introduced a disability benefit that is tied to eligibility for the federal Disability Tax Credit.
- NS data refers to the Disability Supplement introduced in May 2024. We use the monthly average cases from May 2024 to March 2025.
- YT data does not reflect the full use of disability benefits. It is limited to clients in receipt of Yukon Government Social Assistance and does not include social assistance administered by the federal government or by a self-governing First Nation.
Overall, the per capita caseload numbers are largely consistent with our earlier analysis of the breadth of disability definitions. Ontario and Nunavut are near the top of the list and have among the broadest disability definitions in the country.
Conversely, New Brunswick, the Yukon, and Quebec have among the narrowest definitions of disability and comparatively low uptake of their disability benefits.
Another relationship worth investigating is whether the narrowness of disability definitions is linked to the generosity of disability benefits offered through social assistance. For example, the AISH program in Alberta fits this correlation, employing a somewhat restrictive definition while offering greater support to those who qualify. However, Maytree’s calculations of the adequacy of total welfare incomes for an unattached single with a disability suggest that this is not a robust relationship. [Laidley, J. & White, A. (2025). From data to action: Policy implications of Welfare in Canada, 2024. Maytree. (See Figure 2.)] For example, Ontario’s disability program provides higher benefits than that of New Brunswick, despite Ontario finding itself at the top of Table 2 above, and New Brunswick placing at the bottom.
Many social assistance recipients will not meet the definition of disability used by the Canada Disability Benefit
Turning now to the federal disability definition, eligibility for the Disability Tax Credit is based on a particularly long and complex definition in the Income Tax Act that specifies a “severe and prolonged impairment,” placing it among the narrowest of definitions we have analyzed. [Government of Canada. Income Tax Act. Section 118.3(1).] The federal government also offers this less technical definition:
You may be eligible for the DTC if a medical practitioner certifies that you have a severe and prolonged impairment in 1 of the categories, significant limitations in 2 or more categories, or receive therapy to support a vital function. [Government of Canada. (2025). Disability tax credit (DTC): Who is eligible.]
Since eligibility for the CDB is tied to receipt of the DTC certificate, the CDB is inaccessible to many recipients of a provincial or territorial social assistance benefit. Notably, the federal government projects that only 610,000 people will receive the CDB by 2028-29. [Government of Canada. (2014). Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 158, Number 26: Canada Disability Benefit Regulations.] This is below the 750,411 cases that qualified for a disability benefit through a social assistance program in 2024-25 (Table 2). [As noted earlier, this is an underestimate of the total number of individuals who meet a social assistance disability definition in their jurisdiction.] It is even further below the 968,000 Canadians aged 15 to 64 who lived in poverty in 2023 and met yet another definition of disability used in the Canadian Income Survey. [Statistics Canada. Table 11-10-0090-01 Poverty and low-income statistics by disability status.]
The federal government’s use of such a narrow definition undermines its declared intention that “the combined amount of federal and provincial or territorial income supports for persons with disabilities grow to the level of Old Age Security (OAS) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), to fundamentally address the rates of poverty experienced by persons with disabilities.” [Government of Canada. (2024). Budget 2024: Fairness for every generation. Page 107.] Unless the DTC definition changes, hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities who access social assistance will be ineligible for both the DTC and CDB.
On a positive note, the federal Liberal platform included a commitment to review and reform the notoriously difficult DTC application process and consider expanding the eligibility criteria. In the next section, we show how our analysis of disability definitions in social assistance could be used to develop a new, more inclusive definition for the DTC.
Constructing a new disability definition for the DTC
Disability advocates have long argued that if the CDB is envisioned as a top-up to social assistance, then it should be provided automatically to those who have already qualified for a disability benefit in the jurisdiction where they reside.
One way to do this is to adjust DTC rules so social assistance recipients are automatically deemed eligible. While this would vastly simplify access, the tremendous variation in provincial and territorial disability definitions would mean people with identical disabilities would be treated differently based on where in Canada they live.
However, there is an alternative solution that would ensure both access and equity: Change the DTC definition of disability so it is inclusive of all provincial and territorial disability definitions.
Drawing on our analysis of the components described above, here is how one could construct such a definition:
- For severity, we can avoid any qualifiers and simply use “an impairment” as is the case for benefits in Alberta, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories. This is less than or equal to the severity threshold in all jurisdictions.
- For duration, we can select a minimum of six months as per the definition used for the Disabled Incidental Allowance in Nunavut and Barriers to Full Employment in Alberta. This is less than or equal to the duration threshold in all jurisdictions. Though not recommended, setting the minimum duration at one year would still be less than or equal to that used for all other social assistance disability benefits.
- For impact, we can select “a significant or substantial restriction on one or more activities of daily living or paid work.” This draws on several of the broadest definitions in this component and should be flexible enough to be inclusive of all provincial and territorial definitions.
A physical or mental impairment that is expected to last six months or more and that results in a significant or substantial restriction on one or more activities of daily living or paid employment.
We suggest that the federal government employ a similar method of combining the broadest definitions when it develops a new disability definition for the DTC. This is a necessary step to realizing the federal commitment to reduce the depth of poverty among those who receive a disability benefit through social assistance.
Alternatively, there is a second, much simpler, option: Adopt the definition of disability used in the Canada Disability Benefit Act and the Accessible Canada Act:
Disability means any impairment, including a physical, mental, intellectual, cognitive, learning, communication or sensory impairment – or a functional limitation – whether permanent, temporary or episodic in nature, or evident or not, that, in interaction with a barrier, hinders a person’s full and equal participation in society. [Government of Canada. Accessible Canada Act. Section 2.]
Considering again our three components, this definition has no qualifier on the severity of the impairment, has no specific duration other than to explicitly include temporary and episodic disabilities, and would seem to encompass all other impacts of a disability as hindering full and equal participation in society.
Maytree supports either of these options as achieving the goal of immediate CDB access for all recipients of disability-related financial assistance through a provincial or territorial social assistance program. Note that our purpose here is only to promote immediate access for social assistance recipients. Other important goals, such as shifting from a medical model to a biopsychosocial model of disability, could require a more fundamental rethinking of how we define disability.
Critically, we caution governments not to attempt to harmonize around a narrower definition of disability, as this would almost certainly reduce access to provincial and territorial social assistance programs.
A new definition should be part of a larger overhaul of the DTC
A broader definition of disability, combined with a policy of automatic eligibility for existing recipients of social assistance disability programs, would expand access to the DTC and CDB to hundreds of thousands of people living below the poverty line.
However, while this change may help social assistance recipients sidestep the cumbersome DTC application process, it does not address any of the well-documented access and administrative barriers in the design of the DTC itself. [See the reports of the CRA’s Disability Advisory Committee.] Therefore, a new definition should be one element of a larger reform package that includes a full overhaul of DTC rules and processes.