Cheryl Ellison

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

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by disregarding a new medical report from her family doctor and by distinguishing between 'ache' and 'pain'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal did not err in law in affording no weight to the medical report as it did not relate to the appellant's condition at the time of the Director's decision, and that the Tribunal's interpretation of the appellant's evidence regarding her symptoms was a matter of weighing evidence, not an error of law.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal finding that she was not a person with a disability under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's conclusion was supported by an evidentiary basis, making the issue at highest a question of mixed fact and law.

As appeals to the Divisional Court under the Act are restricted to questions of law, the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal regarding the administration and calculation of her entitlements under the Ontario Works Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that appeals under the Act are restricted to questions of law.

Because the appellant raised only administrative and factual complaints, the court found no error of law.

The appellant sought to appeal a final order striking her two Superior Court proceedings, which claimed damages of $8.2 million and $100,000.

The Divisional Court found that an appeal of a final order in these amounts falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

Consequently, the appeals were transferred to the Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the denial of his application for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.

He argued the Tribunal applied the wrong legal test for 'substantial impairment' and erred by failing to consider new medical reports submitted after the Director's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal applied the correct legal test and properly weighed the evidence.

The Court also held the Tribunal did not err in excluding the new medical reports, as they did not clearly relate to the appellant's condition at the effective date of the Director's decision as required by the regulations.

The appellant appealed a tribunal decision finding he was not a person with a disability under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the disability issue, finding the tribunal applied the correct legal test and made no error of law in weighing the medical evidence and prognosis.

However, on consent of the respondent, the matter was remitted to the tribunal for a second hearing to address the appellant's human rights issue.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision that overturned a Social Benefits Tribunal ruling regarding her disability support claim.

The Divisional Court had characterized the Tribunal's failure to accept certain medical evidence as an error of law.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal had properly considered and weighed all the evidence, including medical reports and the appellant's testimony, and that the Divisional Court had improperly interfered with the Tribunal's factual findings.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal that upheld the cancellation of his disability benefits.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in law by finding he and another individual met the definition of 'spouse' under O. Reg. 222/98, asserting that a mutual written declaration was required.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal made no error of law and was entitled to consider surrounding circumstances to determine if a declaration had been made.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal, arguing that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to appreciate the medical evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal considered all evidence, correctly applied s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, and properly determined that the appellant did not have a substantial impairment.

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 Tribunal found her chronic pain did not amount to a substantial impairment.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal erred in law by assessing the appellant's condition on her 'good days' rather than her recurrent 'bad days', and failed to make findings on the frequency and unpredictability of her bad days.

The matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.