Dr. Charles Lefkowitz

The complainant sought reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing her claim for a special diet allowance related to unintended weight loss from Congenital Heart Disease.

She argued that new evidence showed the respondent's expert was not an expert in Adult Congenital Heart Disease.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the complainant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 102, as the new evidence could have been obtained earlier and the original decision found she had not made out a prima facie case even without the respondent's expert evidence.

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.