Cynthia Wilkey

The appellant, a disabled senior, received an overpayment of ODSP income support due to an innocent reporting error regarding his rent.

The Director ordered full repayment.

The Social Benefits Tribunal reduced the recovery to half the amount, but the Divisional Court overturned this, finding no discretion to forgive a Crown debt.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Director's discretion under section 14(4) of the ODSPA includes the authority to forgo recovery of an overpayment, and that the Tribunal has the same discretion on appeal.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario considered the claims of 17 individuals alleging that the special diet allowance schedule under Ontario's social assistance system discriminated against them based on disability.

The claimants argued that the schedule failed to fund or underfunded special diets for 11 different medical conditions.

Applying the four-part test from Ball v. Ontario, the Tribunal dismissed the majority of the claims, finding that the claimants failed to establish that their conditions required modifications to a regular healthy diet, that the diets led to additional costs, or that the medical community generally recognized the need for such diets.

However, the Tribunal allowed the claims for Prader-Willi syndrome and unintended weight loss due to renal failure, as the respondent conceded these conditions met the Ball test.

The Tribunal ordered retroactive benefits for these two conditions, rejecting the respondent's argument that the recognition of Prader-Willi syndrome constituted a substantial change in the law that would preclude retroactive relief.

The Tribunal determined the appropriate remedial order for two cases of discrimination regarding the Special Diet Allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The respondent argued it should be entitled to apply the retroactive benefits owed to the complainants towards their pre-existing overpayments.

The Tribunal held that, to meaningfully remedy the discrimination and place the complainants in the position they would have been in absent the Code violation, the respondent must pay the retroactive benefits directly to the complainants without deducting the overpayments.

The complainants, who receive Ontario Disability Support Program benefits and have been diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C, alleged that the special diet allowance program discriminated against them on the basis of disability.

Applying the test from Ball v. Ontario, the Tribunal found that there is general recognition in the Ontario medical community that individuals with chronic hepatitis C require modifications to a regular healthy diet, specifically increased protein and energy.

The Tribunal concluded that the complainants established disability-based discrimination and ordered the respondent to provide retroactive and ongoing special diet allowances for chronic hepatitis C.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a decision holding that child support payments made to the mother of a disabled adult were not 'income' attributable to the disabled adult under the ODSPA.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that characterizing child support paid to a custodial parent as the disabled adult's income would undermine the disabled adult's right to apply independently for benefits and would unfairly discriminate against disabled children of separated parents.

The child support payments are not payments made 'to or on behalf of or for the benefit of' the disabled adult until the mother actually uses them for the adult's benefit, at which point exemptions for disability-related expenses may apply.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision finding that the respondent was discriminated against due to the lack of a special diet allowance for hypoproteinemia under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The Divisional Court reviewed the Tribunal's decision on a reasonableness standard.

The Court found that there was no evidence before the Tribunal to support its finding that eating additional protein from food sources is generally recognized in the Ontario medical community as an appropriate treatment for hypoproteinemia.

Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was deemed unreasonable and quashed regarding the respondent's claim for a special diet allowance for elevated protein requirements.

The applicant filed an Application relating to the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance programs.

The Tribunal directed that the Application be treated in accordance with the 'lead case' procedure established in Ball v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), unless the parties provide compelling reasons not to do so.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that extended the period for the respondent government to comply with an order regarding special diet benefits.

The Commission argued that the Tribunal was functus officio and lacked the power to extend the compliance period.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the doctrine of functus officio does not restrict administrative tribunals more than courts, and that the Tribunal has the power to extend time periods for compliance with ordered remedies, similar to the Supreme Court of Canada in Charter cases.

The respondent requested an extension of time to implement a future compliance remedy ordered by the Tribunal regarding special diet benefits.

The government announced the elimination of the Special Diet Allowance and the creation of a new nutritional supplement program, requiring 9-12 months to implement.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction under its general remedial powers to extend the time limit without treating the request as a reconsideration.

The Tribunal granted the extension to April 13, 2011, finding it consistent with remedial principles to allow the government a reasonable period to implement comprehensive policy changes to achieve Code compliance.

The complainant sought to withdraw her human rights complaint regarding the special diet allowance.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave to withdraw the complaint based on correspondence from counsel to the Commission.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision regarding next steps in multiple complaints challenging the Special Diet Allowance under Ontario's social assistance programs.

The Tribunal ordered a schedule for document disclosure and the provision of master lists of disabilities/conditions in issue.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted an interim extension of the suspension period for the respondent to provide special diet benefits for certain conditions, pending a full hearing on the respondent's request for a longer extension.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to correct an administrative oversight where the applicant's file was inadvertently omitted from the list of files in a previous interim decision (Lawson v. Ontario).

The Tribunal confirmed that this application regarding the Special Diet Allowance will be treated in the same manner as the other section 34 applications.

Three lead complainants alleged that the special diet allowance component of the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) discriminated against them on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal established a four-part test to determine discrimination in the program: the claimant must have a disability, there must be general medical recognition that a special diet is required, the diet must lead to additional food costs, and the funding must be non-existent or significantly disproportionate to the costs.

The Tribunal found that the program discriminated against W. by failing to fund hypoproteinemia and underfunding hypertension and hypercholesterolemia.

S. was discriminated against due to underfunding for extreme obesity, and B. was discriminated against due to underfunding for hypercholesterolemia.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide retroactive and ongoing benefits in accordance with the Code principles, but declined to award general damages or order a specific redesign of the program.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision finalizing a procedural order to manage multiple complaints regarding the special diet allowance.

The order establishes a timetable for selecting lead cases, disclosing documents, identifying issues, and filing evidence and pleadings.

The Tribunal incorporated minor changes requested by the respondent and the clinic caseworkers representing the complainants.

The respondent's right to request a stay of proceedings due to concurrent litigation before the Social Benefits Tribunal was preserved.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario held a case management conference to determine the procedure for 77 related complaints challenging the special diet allowance regime.

The Tribunal adopted a joint proposal by counsel to proceed with two to six lead cases to be heard together, finding it to be a fair, just, and expeditious manner of resolving the complex complaints.

The Tribunal also addressed privacy concerns by ordering that disclosure be exchanged only among parties to the lead cases and that lead complainants remain anonymous in public documents.

The applicant hospital, a successor hospital following an amalgamation, applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 for a determination of the number and descriptions of bargaining units.

The Board determined that there should be seven bargaining units spanning all three hospital sites.

The Board maintained separate units for stationary engineers, McLean House employees, office and clerical employees, and service employees, but combined part-time and full-time employees into single units for each category.

In a pre-hearing conference regarding pay equity complaints, the Tribunal clarified that the adequacy of the design of the employer's job evaluation system was not subject to review, but rather its application to the job content.

The Tribunal also ordered the employer to disclose individual committee members' evaluation notes, finding them arguably relevant since the employer intended to lead oral evidence to explain how certain job content was rated.

The Tribunal provided directions on the procedure for calling expert witnesses.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation brought a motion for disclosure of information from the Ottawa Board of Education regarding job rates and benefits in pay equity plans.

The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal ordered the Board to disclose the itemization of benefits, the formulas used for determining salary and benefits portions of the job rate, and the methodology for converting benefits to a common denominator.

The Tribunal found the remainder of the disclosure request premature pending the filing of amended pleadings.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF) became the bargaining agent for two units of the Ottawa Board of Education and sought to negotiate new pay equity plans, arguing that certification constituted a changed circumstance and that the existing plans contravened the Pay Equity Act.

The Tribunal held that for the unit previously covered by a non-union plan, certification was a changed circumstance requiring the plan to be split, but for the unit that already had a union plan, a mere change in bargaining agent was not.

The Tribunal further held that an allegation of a contravention does not automatically trigger a duty to negotiate; a contravention must first be proven under the Act.

The parties reached an agreement regarding a process to resolve outstanding pay equity matters and requested the Tribunal to incorporate their agreement into an order.

The Tribunal ordered the withdrawal of two applications and the adjournment of a third.

Pursuant to section 25(2) of the Pay Equity Act, a Review Officer was assigned to assist the parties in concluding pay equity plans for the SETA and PSSP bargaining units.

The order detailed the job evaluation system to be used, the timeline for preparing and posting the plan, and the information the Review Officer must provide if required to carry out job comparisons or determine pay equity adjustments.