Reforming BC’s PWD application process
It’s time to reform the onerous and ableist nature of applying for disability in BC.
Sent March 10, 2026 by Chantelle Spicer as part of the Strengthening Our Social Safety Nets project
Good day,
In the September 2025 meeting between the BC Poverty Reduction Coalition and the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, government staff expressed an interest in making changes to the Persons with Disabilities application as a low-cost and potentially impactful step towards a more just social safety net for people with disabilities. Moving on this interest, we have compiled a set of recommendations from people with lived and living experience receiving the benefit, as well as support and advocacy organisations. Organisations who contributed to these recommendations are: Inclusion BC, Disability Alliance BC, LET’S (Live Educate Transform Society), and Together Against Poverty Society.
The 2020 recommendations from the Universal Basic Income expert panel included changes to the PWD application (recommendation 3). We welcome this recommendation and actions toward it as the application process in and of itself can be a degrading experience for an individual. Inclusion BC has stated ”The Persons with Disability (PWD) application process lacks accessibility and can be challenging to navigate. Person with Disability (PWD) and Income Assistance application forms and MSDPR communications are complicated, difficult for people to understand, and not available in plain language.”
In their report on indigenous-specific income supports, Dr. Anke Kessler and Jacqueline Quinless showed Indigenous peoples are underrepresented as recipients of PWD, with Indigenous Income Assistance recipients consistently over-represented in regular “expected to work” support and consistently under-represented in disability support (14). The authors stated this was due to a combination of a restrictive and onerous application process, as well as the lack of community support workers in Indigenous communities or cultural competencies.
In terms of accessibility, it was recommended that the Ministry:
Make the forms available as PDFs on the ministry website. Respondents to our call for changes stated that having to request the forms or go in person to pick up copies creates more barriers. The Disability Tax Credit application form is available as a PDF on the federal government website and provincial forms are less accessible.
Make the electronic version of the Persons with Disabilities (PWD) Application Form (HR2883) permanently available on the Ministry website and make it easier to find by adding a link to the Province of British Columbia’s Disability assistance page. (Currently this website page only offers the option to “Contact us” to request an application- for the standard PWD Application and the Simplified Prescribed Class Application. Disability assistance - Province of British Columbia).
Simplify system navigation by offering a variety of accessible and culturally safe options.
When updating the application, include people with disabilities in design considerations.
Regarding Practitioners and “proof,” it was recommended:
That section 1 self-report be merged with section 3 to create a condensed section where the applicant can detail their disability in their own words and then the prescribed professional can document the restrictions to daily living activities. Together Against Poverty Society noted that through this more condensed version, the application could be reduced down to 3-5 pages, and be focused on the current pages 19-23, for an overall application length of 5-7 pages.
Increased practitioners who are able to fill in section 2.
Many people do not have access to a doctor due to the lack of doctors in the health care system, remote locations, or institutional racism within the health care system. According to the BC College of Family Physicians, nearly 1 million people in BC are without a doctor. This means people are missing out on accessing the support they require. There is an even greater scarcity of professionals in rural, remote, and Indigenous Communities.
The PWD Application’s over reliance on a medical model of disability can be harmful for the disability community, which includes different Indigenous cultures, who may have their own views on disability. Furthermore, practitioners in any area of the province may not have the training and expertise to serve people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The quality of an application depends on the practitioner’s ability to engage with their patient and fill out forms. Some physicians and nurse practitioners may hesitate or refuse to fill out forms. This is a significant barrier for many people, particularly rural Indigenous peoples, applying for and receiving PWD benefits. Perhaps allowing the same practitioners who fill in section 3 to fill in section 2.
Inclusion BC offered specific recommendations regarding the expansion of practitioners who could complete this section:
Create options that allow for holistic assessments to identify people’s impairments, their impact on daily living, and how long the impairment is likely to last, so that eligibility can be determined in an equitable way, reflecting the barriers above.
Change the application to allow for Section 2-Medical Report, including medical diagnosis, to be supplementary, and optional qualifying criteria. The need for support should be based on individual need, not only diagnosis.
Expand the list of Prescribed Professionals permitted to complete the Section 3-Assessor Report to include roles that ensure culturally responsive and culturally safe options, determined by engagement with Indigenous communities.
Together Against Poverty Society notes that Section 2 could be shortened to a single page and just contain confirmation from the practitioner that the applicant has a severe mental or physical impairment that is likely to continue for at least two years, with an additional paragraph which allows them to add context by giving a description of the impairment or condition. They go on to state that this change would allow the practitioner to fulfill their essential role of confining the legislated requirement, and their practical role of providing detail on what the applications condition or diagnosis is. Page 8 of the current application can be modified to be the entire practitioner section.
Section 3 be eliminated. It has the highest burden of the whole form. Many doctors refuse to fill it and many other practitioners don’t understand the criteria, the high level of detail required, and people are often denied because practitioners did not provide examples.
If section 3 is not being eliminated, Inclusion BC recommended changing of the word “independent” in section 3. Instead this should be changed to “no restrictions”. Many practitioners indicate ‘independent’ when someone doesn’t have support or eventually completes tasks on their own, despite their being severe restrictions such as using assistive devices, taking longer or not doing the task as often as they need to do the task. The MSDPR then uses this as a reason to deny someone.
In terms of clarity of the PWD application, it was recommended that the PWD application:
Provide examples or more clarity around what information is being sought in the questions. In their submission to our call, LETS stated:
“the section that the applicant fills in should have much more information about what they want you to write. The first part I believe is something like ‘describe your disability’ -- should this include diagnoses, when and who diagnosed, symptoms, frequency of symptoms, etc? And for the second part, it does list the activities of daily living that you should describe how your disabilities impact on, but more guidance about how to write that part and what to include would be very helpful. Providing examples somewhere on the website could also be extremely helpful to get a sense of what the Ministry is looking for with this section.”
Include plain language legislation requirements for PWD on the page prior to the application This will allow people to have a clear understanding of the type of information to include or not include in section 1.
In terms of language within the PWD application, desired changes include:
Using plain language in all MSDPR communications related to the application process.
Developing plain language versions of the required application forms and ensure they are readily available and easy to access. People applying for PWD are first required to qualify for Income Assistance, as such, plain language PWD and Income Assistance forms are needed.
Developing a plain language version of the disability assistance and trust booklet and the trusts, committeeships and structured settlements: document guidelines for clients for people applying for PWD who have assets in excess of the PWD limit.
Removal of the language of “severe disability” that is used throughout the PWD Application. This language contributes to ableist ideas and understandings of disability. Inclusion BC noted that: “the term ‘severe’ suggests that a person’s disability is a major flaw or tragedy, rather than a part of human diversity. It not only centers the idea that people with more support needs have less value or a lower quality of life, but it creates a hierarchy, suggesting that some disabilities are more legitimate or deserving of attention and support. This can and does lead to exclusion and gatekeeping for people with disabilities in need of financial assistance. Language like ‘severe disability’ is sometimes used to justify harmful practices, such as institutionalization, medical coercion, sterilization, or lack of consent. Labeling someone as having a ‘severe disability’ can prevent them from being viewed as a whole person.”
Recommendations outside of the application
Conversations about these recommendations were accompanied by more structural changes to PWD, with advocates stating the most significant impact the government could have for recipients of PWD and social assistance more broadly would be increasing the rates. Although the partial removal of the spousal cap is a celebrated action, the rates remain inadequate.
Some recipients echoed the concerns of the recent release of the BC Ombudsperson statement on MoDSPR wait times. Individuals participating in building these recommendations noted that processing times for applications went from 4 to 6 weeks to process, then a month later that had become 6 to 8 weeks from date of submission, and another 5 weeks after that it had become 90 days from date of submission. With staffing cuts and ongoing hiring freezes in the recent budget, recipients and supporting organisations are concerned about what this will mean for people waiting for benefits or answers.
With wait times for processing applications being so lengthy, recipients further noted the need to lift the income cap for people who are on Income Assistance benefits while awaiting a PWD decision. Not only are the IA rates much lower, especially to meet the increased living expenses of being disabled, “not getting access to the additional supports of PWD (nutritional supplements, transit pass, etc), is insanely ableist.” Currently, the only exemption for someone in this limbo situation of awaiting PWD is listing the work search requirement - and this is only the case “so long as we make the submission deadline, if we miss it we're required to look for work and enter into an employment plan in order to receive IA). With benefits so low, many of us don't have a choice and yet we're still penalised through that earnings cap.”
Every person or organisation who took part in creating this list of recommendations notes that the significant burden to “prove” their disability in order to receive income is an insult to many. The universal basic income expert panel spoke about “public trust” in programs like PWD, but the lengths one must go to to receive these benefits far surpasses any measure of “public trust.” It actually serves to erode trust that disabled peoples have in the social safety net to be there for them. Stigmatization towards people with disabilities, especially those with “invisible” disabilities, is still very much prevalent in the healthcare sector, as evidenced by experiences shared by disabled people.
