Rebecca Givens

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal denying him disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The appellant argued the Tribunal ignored evidence, applied the wrong legal test, and provided insufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal did not fundamentally misapprehend the evidence, correctly applied the test for a 'person with a disability' as set out in Crane, and provided adequate reasons to permit appellate review.

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, a person with a disability who shares joint custody of her three children on an alternating week basis, appealed a decision reducing the basic needs component of her income support under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Tribunal had awarded her 100 per cent of the shelter allowance but only 50 per cent of the basic needs allowance, reflecting the shared custody arrangement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjust the basic needs allowance to reflect the reality of joint custody, as the appellant did not have primary care and control of the children more than 50 per cent of the time.

The appellant appealed Agricorp's decision to deny his claim for yield losses on his 2006 soybean crop.

Agricorp denied the claim on the basis that the appellant failed to report damage during the growing season and that the low yield was inconsistent with other growers in the area.

The Tribunal found that the crop was damaged by excessive rainfall, an insured peril, and that the appellant's reporting process was consistent with previous years where claims were paid.

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's estoppel argument and ordered Agricorp to pay the claim based on the reported yield.

The appellants appealed a decision by Agricorp denying their 2005 forage crop insurance claim.

Agricorp had adjusted the claim based on rainfall data from the Percy rain station, which the appellants had selected after receiving a letter from Agricorp and calling its Call Centre.

The appellants argued they were not fully informed of their options and that Agricorp had re-adjusted other customers' claims who were similarly misinformed.

The Tribunal found that the Agricorp Call Centre representative gave incomplete advice by simply telling the appellants to select the station closest to their farm, failing to fully inform them of their options.

The Tribunal ordered Agricorp to adjust the claim using the Seymour rainfall station, which would result in a payout.

The appellant, Royalmar Farms Ltd., appealed a decision by Agricorp regarding the adjustment of its 2005 canola crop insurance claim.

The appellant sought an additional $11,080.33, arguing that the claim should account for the poor quality of the crop caused by drought, which rendered it largely unmarketable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the contract of insurance provided coverage for production shortfalls, not quality shortfalls.

Although other producers may have received payments for both production shortfalls and market sales due to the timing of adjustments, the Tribunal held that claims must be adjusted strictly according to the terms of the contract.

The appellant's income assistance was terminated after she failed to provide required information regarding changes in her circumstances, as required by the Ontario Works Act and its regulations.

She appealed, arguing that her non-compliance should only result in the termination of her own assistance, not that of her dependant daughter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the failure to provide core financial information precludes the administrator from calculating assistance, thereby rendering the dependant's exemption inapplicable.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the Director's denial of his application for income support as a disabled person under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by disregarding and misapprehending medical evidence, specifically by discounting reports from one family physician in favour of another.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal carefully reviewed the medical evidence, noted discrepancies with the appellant's testimony, and made no palpable or overriding error of fact.

The appellant appealed a decision denying her disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Social Benefits Tribunal had found her credible but concluded she was not a person with a disability because she could cope on a day-to-day basis.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal failed to fulfill its statutory duty to give adequate reasons and asked the wrong legal question.

The Court emphasized that social welfare legislation should be interpreted broadly and resolved ambiguities in the claimant's favour.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal with a direction that the appellant is a person with a disability.

The appellant province appealed a judgment concerning the designation of First Nations bands as delivery agents under the Ontario Works Act.

The Court of Appeal resolved the dispute narrowly by declaring that, in light of the 1965 Welfare Agreement, the minister's powers under s. 38 had to be exercised with the consent of the band.

The court set aside the judgment below, established a process by which bands could indicate non-consent and obtain immediate revocation of designation, and left existing designations temporarily in place pending that choice.

The court expressly declined to determine the broader constitutional issues addressed below.