Michelle Schrieder

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

The Divisional Court found that while the Tribunal correctly assessed the appellant's physical impairments, it erred in law by disregarding and failing to appreciate relevant evidence regarding his long-standing mental health impairments.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was returned to the Tribunal for a re-hearing before a different member.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal, which upheld the Director's refusal to deduct a CRA tax payment from her monthly employment earnings for ODSP purposes.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its treatment of the payment and breached procedural fairness by not allowing her former spouse to represent her while she was at work.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's decision to consider the tax payment during a later review of business earnings.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, noting the appellant had ample notice of the hearing and her former spouse was permitted to assist her.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal refusing to reopen his appeal after his ODSP application was initially closed as incomplete.

The Disability Adjudication Unit subsequently accepted the application as complete but denied benefits on the merits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal properly refused to reopen the appeal as it was moot.

The Court also held it lacked jurisdiction to determine the appellant's eligibility for benefits, as there was no Tribunal decision on entitlement before it.

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

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred by giving little weight to unverified medical conditions when assessing the substantiality of her verified impairments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness and that the Tribunal correctly applied the law by considering the whole person without improperly relying on unverified impairments.

The appellant, a former recipient of income support, appealed the Director's decision to pay his medical transportation benefit directly to a taxi company.

The Social Benefits Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 21(2) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the court held that regardless of whether extended health benefits constitute income support, s. 21(1) limits appeals to decisions affecting eligibility or the amount of benefits.

As the direct payment decision affected neither, the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, an ODSP recipient, appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which held that the 'cost of transportation' for medical travel by private vehicle under O. Reg. 222/98 was limited to operating costs and excluded ownership costs.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's interpretation unreasonable.

The Court held that the plain meaning, context, and purpose of the legislation did not support excluding ownership costs from the calculation of the medical transportation benefit, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for redetermination.

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.