‘It's just too much': Ontario senior unretires to fight high cost of living
Jane Woodcock says when her husband died in 2018, she quickly realized she did not have enough income to support herself and their five animals.
In 2019, just before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the 68-year-old Woodcock started to see the price of everything rise, leading her to find a job as a cleaner to help cover costs.
The Deseronto, Ont., resident told Global News she'd never imagined she would find herself in this position.
'I thought I'd be retired because my husband died seven years ago and before that I wasn't working, he was working and supporting both of us and all the animals,' she said.
A 2024 report from Resume Builder found that four in 10 working seniors have unretired.
1:19
'My paycheck might only cover daycare': Ontario family struggles as cost of living climbs
The report shows that 39 per cent of seniors who are employed have returned to work after retirement, while the other 61 per cent have never retired.
Story continues below advertisement
The report says the top reason seniors are returning to work are the cost living increases and insufficient retirement savings.
Get daily National news
Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
Woodcock has two dogs, two cats, and a potbellied pig, and says food to feed herself and her pets is getting out of control.
'Every time I go into the grocery store stuff that I was always buying before; it's like double the price and just piss me off,' she remarked.
Woodcock estimates she spends $400 a month just for food on the pig, while costs for the other animals also skyrocketed 'ridiculously' high.
She has also had to make hard cuts in other areas of her life, like getting rid of cable and being cautious when she runs her heating and air conditioning.
'People should be able to live properly. If you're hot, you should be allowed to turn on the air conditioner, if you're cold turn up the heat…. It's just too much,' she said.
Between her job and survivors pension she gets from her late husband, she has about $4,000 a month to cover expenses but she said between still has a mortgage, to paying for insurance and food that quickly disappears.
'It's a mix, and it's still not enough.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Global News
16 minutes ago
- Global News
Duracell sues Energizer over battery life claims in high-voltage feud
In a battle of the batteries, Duracell has sued Energizer, accusing its rival of crossing the positive line and misleading consumers in a nationwide TV and online ad campaign about whose batteries last longer. Duracell, owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, filed a complaint in Manhattan federal court on June 13, stating that it has suffered irreparable harm and lost customer goodwill due to Energizer Max ads featuring Energizer's sunglasses-clad, drum-beating pink bunny. Duracell contested claims that Energizer Max outlasts Duracell Power Boost batteries by 10 per cent, that it 'beats' Duracell, and is 'proven to last longer' in the ongoing power struggle between the two brands. It said Energizer based those claims solely on a comparison of AA batteries under the non-profit American National Standards Institute's personal grooming products standard and does not apply to all Duracell batteries. Story continues below advertisement The claims 'necessarily imply the false message that Energizer Max batteries outlast all Duracell batteries' and represent 'a clear effort by Energizer to expand its market share — at Duracell's expense,' Duracell said in the high-voltage feud against its competitor. 3:59 Health Matters: Button battery poisoning One of Energizer's recent YouTube ads shows their pink bunny battling it out with a battery that looks very similar to a Duracell product. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'There's no competition. Energizer Max outlasts Duracell Power Boost by 10 per cent. No fluff. Just facts. Energizer Max now powered by enhanced energy,' a voiceover states. Duracell accused Energizer of false advertising under federal and New York unfair competition laws but Energizer has yet to respond to the claim. It is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, including lost profits and an injunction requiring 'corrective advertising.' Story continues below advertisement This isn't the first time the companies have battled it out in a fully charged courtroom. In 2022, Energizer won a seven-year court case against Duracell in a Canadian court after arguing that Duracell packaging couldn't claim its products lasted longer than Energizer products because of the contravened trademark law, since their slogan is famously associated with the Energizer Bunny that 'keeps going and going and going.' The court ruled in Energizer's favour regarding the use of its trademarks in Duracell's campaign, awarding Energizer a permanent injunction and $179,000 in damages. In 2019 and 2020, Duracell and Energizer sued each other in the Manhattan court over performance claims in ads for Duracell Optimum and Energizer Max batteries. Both lawsuits were resolved and voluntarily dismissed in December 2020. It seems that Energizer 'keeps suing and suing and suing' as they won another lawsuit against Duracell in 2016 for using a pink bunny mascot in their ads even though Duracell began using a pink bunny in 1973. View image in full screen Pink rabbit and a drum, emblem of Duracell from 1973. Apic/Getty Images Energizer began featuring a pink bunny in their ad campaigns in 1989 and Duracell retained European rights to the bunny in a deal between the two companies in 1992. But Energizer claimed its rights were violated in 2016 because packages of Duracell batteries featuring the rabbit began showing up in stores in the United States after being imported from Europe. Story continues below advertisement View image in full screen The Energizer Bunny during the filming of a television commercial, July 27, 2000, in Los Angeles, Calif. Getty Images/Bob Riha, Jr. After Energizer filed a trademark infringement and contract violation against its rival, Duracell replied and said the cases Energizer cited came from overseas distributors imported packages abroad and that they did not have the power to stop those distributors from shipping them. In November 2017, a United States District judge threw out most of Energizer's claims in the judgement, but left the breach of the 1992 territorial contract. As for the latest legal power struggle between the two battery giants, it seems the feud will keep on going and going with a fully charged debate. — With files from Reuters
Global News
2 hours ago
- Global News
Canada, U.K. to reveal findings of 23andMe data breach probe
Privacy officials for Canada and the United Kingdom are set to speak Tuesday about the findings of a joint investigation into a global data breach that occurred nearly two years ago at the direct-to-consumer genetic testing company 23andMe. Canadian privacy commissioner Philippe Dufresne and British information commissioner John Edwards launched the joint investigation in June 2024. The two offices are expected to release their findings at 9:45 a.m. eastern on Tuesday. The investigation was to examine the scope of information exposed by the breach that occurred in October 2023 and the potential harm it posed to individuals, whether 23andMe had adequate safeguards to protect the highly sensitive information it had, and whether it provided adequate notification of the breach to both their offices and affected individuals. 'In the wrong hands, an individual's genetic information could be misused for surveillance and discrimination,' Dufresne said in a statement when the investigation was launched. Story continues below advertisement 2:27 Health Matters: Regeneron buying 23andMe The company settled a lawsuit late last year that accused 23andMe of failing to protect the privacy of 6.9 million customers whose personal information was exposed in the breach. The company was ordered to pay US$30 million and provide three years of security monitoring. Get weekly health news Receive the latest medical news and health information delivered to you every Sunday. Sign up for weekly health newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy In the months since the breach, the company has faced numerous issues, including seeing its value in public listings drop by more than 97 per cent and its seven independent directors resigning last September amid news the original founder was planning to take the company private once more. The company has never made a profit and filed for bankruptcy in March, seeking to sell its business at auction after a decline in demand and the 2023 data breach. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals last month agreed to buy the company for US$256 million, but on Monday declined to submit a new bid for the company after 23andMe co-founder Anne Wojcicki beat its offer, putting forward US$305 million from the non-profit she controls. Story continues below advertisement The bid from Wojcicki is expected to close in the coming weeks after a court hearing scheduled for Tuesday, according to her non-profit TTAM Research Institute. The non-profit said it would uphold 23andMe's existing privacy policies and comply with all applicable data protection laws. — with files from Reuters
Global News
4 hours ago
- Global News
No impact to Toronto's green standard under new Ontario law, city staff says
A newly released report from city staff says Toronto still has the authority to mandate new buildings meet certain climate and sustainability targets, despite concerns those powers could be undercut by a recent Ontario law. The report set to go before the city's executive committee today says there's 'no impact' to the city's ability to apply its green standard to new development under the recently passed Bill 17, Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act. Several environmental and industry groups have suggested the law may prevent municipalities from setting standards beyond what's already required in the provincial building code. Toronto's green standard is considered a key plank of the city's climate plan and is touted as a way to make new buildings more resilient to climate-fuelled extreme weather while cutting back on emissions. Among other things, it requires new builds to retain stormwater to prevent flooding during extreme rainfall and have enough tree canopy to help stave off extreme heat. It also requires buildings to meet annual emissions targets, pushing developers to consider low-carbon heating options such as heat pumps over natural gas, and install parking spots for bikes and electric vehicles. Story continues below advertisement A spokesperson for Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Rob Flack did not directly say whether the bill would impact Toronto's ability to enforce the standard, but she did say it was adding to building costs and slowing down construction. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'Our government is focused on what the economics support, setting the same rules for everyone to get shovels in the ground to build more homes faster,' Alexandra Sanita wrote in a statement. The Atmospheric Fund, a regional agency that supports climate solutions in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, has suggested green development standards may actually help accelerate development timelines by streamlining sustainability-related planning requirements into a single document with clear expectations. In a letter to the province, it pointed to data that suggested Toronto and Pickering, two municipalities with green standards, have both seen their approval timelines improve in recent years, although they remain above the national average. Bryan Purcell, a vice-president at The Atmospheric Fund who's worked closely on green standards, says he was 'somewhat surprised' but 'very encouraged' by how definitive the city's position was in the staff report. He says green standards are 'so core' to Toronto's climate objectives that 'we can't really afford to lose it.' But he said the bill had generated enough confusion to possibly stall efforts by municipalities interested in pursuing their own version of the standard. Story continues below advertisement 'I think the biggest immediate impact is that I expect to see some slowdown in those cities that were on the path of developing their first green standards,' he said in an interview. The omnibus Bill 17 was rushed through the legislature and passed into law earlier this month before a public comment period closed and without further review by a legislative committee. Changes made under the new provincial law prevent municipalities from passing bylaws respecting the construction or demolition of buildings. Some law firms and regulatory bodies, including the Ontario Association of Architects, have said that change would appear to make green standards obsolete. Others have suggested the province may use the bill to limit what types of studies a city can require from a developer before approving a project. Toronto's green standard, for example, requires a developer to submit an energy modelling report that outlines how the building will keep greenhouse gas emissions in check. The OAA says green standards should not be lost, adding they help 'everyone understand energy consumption in buildings,' and position Ontario to achieve its climate targets. More than a dozen other Ontario municipalities have used Toronto as a model to come up with their own green standards. While Toronto, Halton Hills and Whitby are among those with mandatory standards, most are voluntary. The Residential Construction Council of Ontario, a vocal critic of the standard, has suggested it's adding to housing costs. RESCON sued Toronto over the standard last year in a case still before the courts. Story continues below advertisement President Richard Lyall called the city staff report set to be discussed Tuesday 'delusional and unsubstantiated.' 'We're going to make our views known to the committee,' he said.
