Justice Doris Ling-Cohan
Tenant Sarwar sought to annul respondents’ decision terminating her Section 8 subsidy. It was discovered that Sarwar’s two adult children, who were listed as living in her household, submitted false statements, over a three year period, indicating no income or financial benefits. An informal hearing was held and the decision upheld termination of Sarwar’s subsidy. Sarwar claimed the penalty of losing her subsidy was disproportionately harsh. The court noted Sarwar’s resulting penalty denied her the Section 8 subsidy, not her tenancy, thus was not unduly harsh. It also noted while Sarwar sought to frame the issue as a failure to provide her with interpreting services to assist her in fully comprehending what she was signing, her adult children spoke fluent English, and were educated in this country, thus were available to help. Also, the children clearly knew they gave false statements regarding their income, and the court stated it was rational for Housing Preservation and Development to expect accurate reporting of family financial data for calculating Section 8 rent subsidies. The court ruled it was not capricious to determine that selective reporting and falsely reporting household composition and income over several years violated program regulations. The petition was denied.
