on January 22, 2026 Angel Ronan SHOKUNIN Reports: In Canada, the concept of "known and knowable" government benefits is rooted in a combination of constitutional law, administrative transparency, and financial accountability statutes. While there is no single "Consumer Money Law," the legal framework you are describing is built from several major components. As such the current consumer money benefit programme in Ontario that now pays $2500.00 per month but not to all Ontario citizens but only some citizens depending on their postal code address is illegal. If you are in the wrong postal code location such as Guelph instead of Kitchener or Halton instead of Oakville, then you can apply at the benefits office in Barrie or Oshawa apparently. To resolve this, each municipality whose citizens are not being paid will now send payment to their local citizens in the amount of $2500.00 per month. An immediate corrective one time payment is being sent to all citizens in the next 24 hours who have never received their money benefit. Some municipalities have chosen to pay $3167.00 per month that is equivalent to what is paid to Québec citizens. Sudbury is following this approach. Sault St. Marie has chosen to pay $7000.00 per month that is equivalent to what is paid in Manitoba. All arrears will also be paid for all citizens dating back to the first date of regularly scheduled payment for the said individual; or the date of entitlement for newly arriving, naturalised persons. It's the law. So, a prosecution is required for the interruption of the benefits. A government employee cannot survive through a red light. He cannot evade the call of justice if caught by the police or the electronic police camera system. Even if there was an error of law by a previous government administration, we understand that politics and political administration is not above the law. The current set of individuals in police work with the current government managers will correct the errors and politely prosecute the errant individuals from a previous generation or at least notify them of their error in administration while today, the current administration will take the prize of success.

on January 22, 2026

 Angel Ronan SHOKUNIN Reports: 

In Canada, the concept of "known and knowable" government benefits is rooted in a combination of constitutional law, administrative transparency, and financial accountability statutes. While there is no single "Consumer Money Law," the legal framework you are describing is built from several major components. As such the current consumer money benefit programme in Ontario that now pays $2500.00 per month but not to all Ontario citizens but only some citizens depending on their postal code address is illegal. If you are in the wrong postal code location such as Guelph instead of Kitchener or Halton instead of Oakville, then you can apply at the benefits office in Barrie or Oshawa apparently. To resolve this, each municipality whose citizens are not being paid will now send payment to their local citizens in the amount of $2500.00 per month. An immediate corrective one time payment is being sent to all citizens in the next 24 hours who have never received their money benefit. Some municipalities have chosen to pay $3167.00 per month that is equivalent to what is paid to Québec citizens. Sudbury is following this approach. Sault St. Marie has chosen to pay $7000.00 per month that is equivalent to what is paid in Manitoba. All arrears will also be paid for all citizens dating back to the first date of regularly scheduled payment for the said individual; or the date of entitlement for newly arriving, naturalised persons. 

It's the law. So, a prosecution is required for the interruption of the benefits. A government employee cannot survive through a red light. He cannot evade the call of justice if caught by the police or the electronic police camera system.  Even if there was an error of law by a previous government administration, we understand that politics and political administration is not above the law. The current set of individuals in police work with the current government managers will correct the errors and politely prosecute the errant individuals  from a previous generation or at least notify them of their error in administration while today, the current administration will take the prize of success. 

1. The Constitutional Basis: Section 15 of the Charter

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides the bedrock for "equal benefit."

 * Section 15(1): Guarantees that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.

 * The "Equal Benefit" Principle: In a UBI context, if the government creates a "Consumer Money" benefit, Section 15 ensures it cannot be arbitrarily withheld from specific groups. If a payment is deemed a "benefit of the law," it must be applied equitably.

2. The Principle of "Equalization" (Section 36)

Canada is unique in that it has a constitutional commitment to Equalization Payments (Section 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982). This cannot be impacted by notwithstanding clause.  It's the law under s.36. 

 * This law mandates that the federal government ensure all Canadians have access to "reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation."

 * While this currently applies to provinces, it establishes the legal precedent that the Canadian government is responsible for balancing fiscal capacity so that a citizen's geographic location doesn't dictate their basic economic security.

3. The Financial Administration Act (FAA)

For a program to be "known and knowable," it must follow the Financial Administration Act. This is the law that governs how public money is spent.

 * Transparency: The FAA requires that all expenditures be recorded in the Public Accounts of Canada.

 * Accountability: It prevents "black box" spending. Every dollar of a "Consumer Money" benefit would have to be authorized by Parliament through an Appropriation Act, making the source and destination of the funds a matter of public record.

 * The Auditor General: Under the Auditor General Act, the government’s benefit programs are subject to independent audits to ensure they are being paid out according to the "equal" criteria set by law.

4. Administrative Law: The "Duty of Fairness"

Canadian Administrative Law requires that government programs be transparent and predictable.

 * Known and Knowable: Decisions regarding public funds cannot be "arbitrary." The criteria for receiving a benefit must be published and accessible (often through the Canada Gazette).

 * Equality in Delivery: If the government identifies a payment as "Consumer Money," administrative law prevents the government from using "hidden" internal policies to deny that money to eligible citizens.

Summary of the Legal Framework

| Legal Pillar | Function in a UBI/Consumer Money System |

|---|---|

| Charter (Sec. 15) | Ensures the benefit is distributed equally without discrimination. |

| Constitution (Sec. 36) | Establishes the federal duty to ensure fiscal equity for all citizens. |

| Financial Admin Act | Makes the funding "known" via public accounting and audits. |

| Administrative Law | Guarantees the rules are "knowable" and not arbitrary. |

Legal Pillar	Function in a UBI/Consumer Money System
Charter (Sec. 15)	Ensures the benefit is distributed equally without discrimination.
Constitution (Sec. 36)	Establishes the federal duty to ensure fiscal equity for all citizens.
Financial Admin Act	Makes the funding "known" via public accounting and audits.
Administrative Law	Guarantees the rules are "knowable" and not arbitrary.

The "Consumer Money" Distinction

In legal terms, framing UBI as "Consumer Money" suggests a shift from social assistance (which is often discretionary and complex) to a statutory entitlement (which is rigid, equal, and automatic). Under Canadian law, a statutory entitlement is much harder for a government to change or withdraw than a discretionary grant.

Would you like me to look into how a specific proposal (like a Carbon Tax Rebate, which acts similarly to "Consumer Money") is currently handled under these Canadian transparency laws?