Cheryl Ellison

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the Administrator's assessment of an overpayment.

The appellant argued the Administrator operated in bad faith and delayed the assessment, and contested the application of funding received in December to an overpayment for November.

The Divisional Court found that the appellant was attempting to reargue the facts and weighing of evidence.

The Court found no error of law in the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing his discrimination claim.

The respondents raised the issue of prematurity because the applicant did not seek reconsideration at the Tribunal.

The prematurity issue was bifurcated for a separate hearing.

The Divisional Court concluded it was not advisable to separate the prematurity issue from the rest of the application and adjourned it to be decided by the panel hearing the full application for judicial review.

The self-represented appellant requested an adjournment of the appeal hearing and indicated an expectation that the hearing would proceed by Zoom.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment, directing that the rescheduled hearing proceed by Zoom and be peremptory to the appellant.

Costs of the day were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal denying him Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits.

The Tribunal had found that the appellant's impairments were not substantial at the time of the Director's decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by unreasonably disregarding a psychiatric report prepared after the Director's decision, which was admissible under s. 64(1) of O. Reg. 222/98.

The Tribunal also misapprehended medical imaging evidence regarding the appellant's physical condition and failed to consider medical opinions relating to his depression.

The matter was remitted to a new panel for a rehearing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal denying him Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits.

The Tribunal had found that the appellant's impairments were not substantial at the time of the Director's decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by unreasonably disregarding a psychiatrist's report prepared after the Director's decision, which corroborated the appellant's physical and mental conditions.

The matter was remitted to a new panel of the Tribunal for a rehearing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal affirming the termination of his ODSP benefits.

His benefits were terminated because he was absent from Ontario for more than 30 days after travelling to Mexico and missing his return flight due to illness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's decision and noting the appellant conceded he was ineligible for ODSP benefits during the relevant period because he was receiving OSAP.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability with respect to services, specifically regarding the denial and delayed processing of a Housing Stabilization Fund request.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence beyond his own belief to connect the alleged unfair treatment to his disability.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in goods, services, and facilities on the ground of disability, specifically regarding the denial of ODSP funding.

The respondents requested the removal of two personal respondents (an ODSP case worker and a manager) and requested a summary hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the case worker, finding her alleged conduct related to implementing organizational policy, but denied the request to remove the manager, as the allegations against him concerned personal disparaging comments.

The Tribunal also denied the request for a summary hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and receipt of public assistance after the respondents sought to recover an overpayment of ODSP benefits she received while residing in British Columbia.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondents' decision to enforce the overpayment to a protected ground under the Code, and noting that disputes over ODSP benefit administration fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the Director's finding that the appellant was not financially eligible for ODSP income support due to her receipt of long-term disability insurance benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's decision involved a question of mixed fact and law, which is not appealable under the ODSPA, and that the Tribunal's conclusion was reasonable.

The applicant, an adult with a severe intellectual disability, alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the residential services provided by the respondent agency and the oversight by the respondent Ministry.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegations were essentially complaints about the quality of care and disagreements over the nature of support, which do not constitute Code-related discrimination.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect of success against the Ministry for failing to intervene, as there is no Code-related obligation for the Ministry to oversee the agency's accommodation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder, alleged discrimination regarding his discharge from IBI therapy provided by Kinark.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, finding no reasonable prospect of success for holding the funder vicariously liable.

The Tribunal ruled that historical treatment allegations were untimely for remedial purposes but could be introduced as context.

The Tribunal also held that the Independent Review Mechanism (IRM) process, which upheld the clinical discharge decision, did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code, as it was a clinical review rather than a legal one.

The applicant was directed to clarify the specific allegations against the IRM reviewer and coordinator.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of the claimant, an ODSP recipient, alleging that the respondent's policies regarding Extended Health Benefits and Transitional Health Benefits are discriminatory.

The claimant is currently financially eligible for ODSP but anticipates losing eligibility in the future when she begins receiving a survivor's pension.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was premature.

The Tribunal found that it lacks jurisdiction to hear claims based on anticipated future infringements of the Human Rights Code, as section 34(1) only addresses incidents of discrimination that have already occurred.

The application was dismissed as premature.

The applicant, a child with autism and secondary disabilities, alleged discrimination in the provision of services after being discharged from an intensive behavioural intervention program.

The respondents, Kinark Child and Family Services and the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the Ministry, finding no allegations of specific acts that disadvantaged the applicant on the basis of disability.

However, the Tribunal denied Kinark's request to dismiss, as the applicant alleged the testing used for discharge failed to accommodate her secondary disabilities, which required a hearing on the merits to resolve.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her deferred human rights application following the conclusion of a proceeding before the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The respondent did not take a position on the reactivation but filed a Request for Summary Hearing.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to reactivate the application, finding she complied with Rules 14.3 and 14.4.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's Request for Summary Hearing without reasons, pursuant to Rule 19A.5.

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a proceeding at the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT).

The applicant provided a letter stating she did not intend to raise a Code challenge at the SBT, but the respondent's counsel advised that the applicant's SBT counsel intended to challenge the 'spouse' provisions of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act under the Code.

The Tribunal found that material facts had not changed and that deferral remained appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The request to re-activate was denied.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability, pending the completion of a parallel civil action between the parties.

The civil action concerned the employer's vicarious liability for a co-worker's misconduct, which allegedly caused the applicant's disability.

The Tribunal found that the two proceedings did not address the same allegations and there was little risk of inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application and directed the respondent to file a Response.

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability, while the respondent requested to defer it.

The Tribunal found that a proceeding relating to the same allegations was ongoing before the Social Benefits Tribunal.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the Social Benefits Tribunal proceeding.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal denying her application for ODSP benefits.

She argued the Tribunal erred in law by ignoring evidence, misinterpreting the definition of a person with a disability, and failing to provide adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal correctly applied the legal test, reasonably weighed the evidence regarding her activities of daily living and employability, and provided adequate reasons that demonstrated its logical path.

The applicants alleged that the Halton Children's Aid Society discriminated against them on the basis of age and family status, and engaged in reprisal, by interviewing the minor applicants without parental consent during a child protection investigation.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The minor applicants did not meet the Code's definition of 'age' (18 years or more) for the provision of services, and there was no evidence linking the respondents' actions to family status or demonstrating a reprisal for claiming Code rights.