Geoffrey Baker

Three ODSP recipients appealed the Social Benefits Tribunal's decision denying them medical travel benefits to attend a therapeutic aquafitness program for severe mental illness.

The Tribunal had found the program was not a 'medical treatment' and questioned why alternative funding or programs were not used.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, holding that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to apply a purposive interpretation to the ODSPA.

The Court found the medically prescribed, psychiatrist-supervised aquafitness program constituted 'medical treatment' and that the regulation does not require applicants to prove no alternative programs or funding sources exist.

The applicant filed four human rights applications alleging that inheritance and other cheques were stolen or withheld from her by various respondents, including shelters, government ministries, and Canada Post.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the applications had no reasonable prospect of success as they failed to link the allegations to any prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code or establish the respondents' responsibility.

The application against Canada Post was also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as it is a federally regulated enterprise.

The appellants appealed two decisions of the Social Benefits Tribunal that upheld an overpayment assessment of $60,231.86 by the Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The appellants argued the Tribunal made factual and procedural errors, failed to consider certain arguments, and demonstrated bias.

The Divisional Court found no errors of law, palpable or overriding errors of fact, or evidence of bias in the Tribunal's merits decision.

The Court also dismissed the appeal of the human rights decision, finding no error in the Tribunal's treatment of the appellant's inheritance, corporate veil, or business expenses.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the delivery of services based on disability, creed, and age.

A summary hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal had previously denied the applicant's request for an adjournment.

Given the applicant's failure to appear despite receiving proper notice, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed human rights applications against numerous dentists, physicians, and administrative staff, alleging discrimination based on disability and creed, as well as reprisal.

He claimed he received substandard medical and dental care because he was an ODSP recipient and because of his spiritual beliefs.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could not point to any evidence linking the alleged mistreatment to the protected grounds under the Code.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, race, ancestry, and ethnic origin after his Mandatory Special Necessities (MSN) benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program were terminated for failing to provide a new medical form.

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

The Tribunal found that requiring medical documentation to confirm eligibility for a disability-based benefit program does not constitute discrimination under the Human Rights Code, and that the applicant's allegations regarding race and ethnic origin were raised too late and lacked factual foundation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, an ODSP recipient, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the provision of services by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

She claimed the respondents failed to provide necessary information to help her manage estate inheritance payments without adversely impacting her benefits.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing and dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's dissatisfaction with the statutory scheme and lack of information did not disclose a prima facie case of discrimination, as there was no allegation of differential treatment or adverse impact based on disability.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which held that non-earner benefits received by the respondent following a motor vehicle accident were exempt from income calculations.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that non-earner benefits do not qualify as an exemption for 'pain and suffering' under paragraph 43(1)4(i) of the General Regulation.

The court concluded that the benefits must be included in the calculation of income for the purposes of determining eligibility for income support.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing for his human rights application alleging discrimination in the termination of his ODSP benefits.

The applicant sent a late email claiming he was too ill to attend due to stress caused by the respondents.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide medical documentation substantiating his inability to attend, failing which the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to provide written submissions clarifying how his allegations constitute a violation of the Code and fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The appellant, a recipient of disability benefits, applied for a retroactive special diet allowance for the period from June 1998 to November 2003.

The Director denied the application, and the Social Benefits Tribunal dismissed the subsequent appeal.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by not applying the relevant regulation retroactively and breached natural justice by requiring corroborative evidence without notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal made no error of law in determining the facts did not justify a retroactive award, and held there was no breach of procedural fairness as the onus was on the appellant to prove his claim.

The appellant, a recipient of disability benefits, received a settlement for a personal injury action that included prejudgment interest.

The Director determined that the prejudgment interest was not exempt income under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, reducing the appellant's benefits.

The Social Benefits Tribunal affirmed this decision.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that prejudgment interest is paid 'for' pain and suffering as part of the overall compensation package.

The appeal was allowed, and the prejudgment interest was deemed exempt income.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a Divisional Court decision that set aside a Social Benefits Tribunal ruling denying the respondent disability benefits.

The Court of Appeal held that the Divisional Court erred in its interpretation of s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act by conflating the separate inquiries for 'substantial impairment' and 'substantial restriction' in activities of daily living.

However, the Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the Tribunal made a palpable and overriding error by misapprehending the respondent's employment history.

The appeal was dismissed and a new hearing was ordered before a different member of the Tribunal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the Director's finding that she was not a 'person with a disability' under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly interpret and apply all three subparagraphs of section 4(1) of the Act.

The court held that the Tribunal improperly stopped its analysis after finding no 'substantial' impairment under subparagraph (a), without considering the impact of the impairment on activities of daily living under subparagraph (b).

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Social Benefits Tribunal decision denying him disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by overlooking medical evidence and his inability to function in the workplace.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal correctly interpreted the legislation, properly considered the medical evidence, and made credibility findings that supported its conclusion that the applicant did not meet the statutory definition of a person with a disability.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Social Benefits Tribunal denying him disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by overlooking medical evidence and making findings of fact without evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal correctly interpreted the legislation, properly considered the medical evidence, and made credibility findings that supported its conclusion that the applicant did not meet the statutory definition of a person with a disability.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Tribunal regarding his eligibility for disability support.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to make findings of fact on crucial medical evidence, including reports from the appellant's family doctor and a specialist confirming his long-term disabling conditions.

The appeal was allowed, the decision set aside, and the matter remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for reconsideration.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his application to vary support.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in rejecting the appellant's medical evidence, which indicated he was unable to work full-time.

Given the conflicting evidence regarding the appellant's ability to work, the motion judge should have ordered the trial of an issue.

The appeal was allowed, the order set aside, and the trial of an issue ordered.