Lesli Bisgould

Charlas MacKenzie, eligible for rent-geared-to-income assistance, had his subsidy terminated by Ottawa Community Housing Corporation and the City of Ottawa.

This was due to his failure to report a change in household composition (daughters removed due to bail conditions) and prolonged absence from his unit (required to live with surety).

The Divisional Court dismissed his application for judicial review, finding the respondents' decisions reasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, finding the respondents' interpretation and application of the Housing Services Act, 2011 and its regulations regarding reporting changes and absence from the unit to be reasonable, particularly in the context of limited housing subsidies and long waitlists.

The court also found no error in the assessment of extenuating circumstances.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing they were denied procedural fairness when the Board member refused to allow them to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses regarding the landlord's issuance of a trespass notice to their personal support worker.

The Divisional Court found that the member committed a fundamental error by failing to provide a reasonable opportunity for the tenants to be heard.

The matter was remitted to a different member of the Board for a new hearing on the issues of threats, the impact of the trespass notice, and appropriate remedies.

The appellant tenants appealed decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing their motions to set aside eviction orders.

The landlord had obtained the eviction orders ex parte after the tenants signed agreements to terminate their tenancies (N11 forms) under pressure, having been told they had to vacate for renovations without being informed of their statutory rights.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, finding the Board Member erred in law by failing to apply the proper test under s. 77(8)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, failing to consider all the circumstances, and failing to assess the real substance of the transactions and the landlord's good faith under s. 202.

The eviction orders were set aside and new hearings were ordered.

The moving party, a vulnerable tenant in subsidized housing, was evicted for a minor breach of a mediated settlement agreement.

The landlord and sheriff executed the eviction before the tenant could file an appeal.

The tenant brought an urgent motion to reinstate his tenancy pending the appeal.

The Divisional Court held it had jurisdiction under section 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to reinstate the tenancy despite the execution of the eviction order.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the Board's failure to consider all circumstances, and that the tenant would suffer irreparable harm due to homelessness during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The motion was granted and the tenancy reinstated.

The appellant tenant brought an urgent motion to be restored to the premises during the COVID-19 suspension of normal court activities.

The landlord undertook not to re-lease or give possession of the unit pending the final determination of the motion.

The court adjourned the motion to a teleconference hearing and provided procedural directions for the filing of affidavit evidence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the denial of her Ontario Works benefits due to having assets in excess of the allowable limit.

The Tribunal found that the appellant owned three vehicles, the value of which exceeded the $5,000 limit for a single person.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by equating legal ownership with the definition of an 'asset' under the Act and failing to consider if the vehicles were exempt.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal made no error in law as the appellant failed to adduce evidence that the vehicles were inaccessible or exempt under the regulations.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program brought a motion to quash the respondent's application for judicial review.

The respondent sought mandamus to compel the Director to pay ODSP benefits based on a Social Benefits Tribunal order, and to review the actions of the Director's representatives who allegedly prevented her from re-applying for benefits.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash the portion of the application regarding the SBT order, finding it plain and obvious it could not succeed because the Director had not made a binding determination of financial eligibility.

However, the court dismissed the motion to quash the portion regarding the denial of the right to re-apply, finding it was a reviewable exercise of a statutory power of decision.

The court also struck portions of the respondent's affidavits but admitted evidence necessary to supplement the record regarding the denial of the right to re-apply.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy and ordering eviction after police found a loaded firearm and drugs in her unit, which were possessed by her son.

The tenant argued the Board erred in law by relying on hearsay evidence and misapplying the eviction and relief provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's reliance on hearsay was permitted under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and that the tenant's arguments raised unreviewable questions of fact or mixed fact and law.

The appellant tenants appealed a decision denying them a rent abatement after their apartment building's elevator was out of service for 96 days due to a latent defect.

The Landlord and Tenant Board found that the landlord had acted diligently and reasonably in maintaining the elevator and replacing it, and thus did not breach its duty to maintain the residential complex in a good state of repair under s. 20(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The Divisional Court affirmed the decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's contextual interpretation of s. 20(1), which considered the reasonableness of the landlord's actions, was reasonable and did not constitute an error of law.

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.

The appellant's disability benefits were suspended for failing to provide required financial information.

Two years later, she requested an extension of time for an internal review, which the Director denied.

The Social Benefits Tribunal reinstated her benefits, finding her disabilities prevented timely compliance.

The Divisional Court overturned the Tribunal's decision, ruling it lacked jurisdiction due to the one-year limitation period for appeals.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appeal was statute-barred and the Director's refusal to extend the time for an internal review was a prescribed decision that could not be appealed.

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 complainants requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that found discrimination regarding the special diet allowance for social assistance recipients with chronic hepatitis C. The complainants argued the Tribunal should have also made findings and ordered remedies regarding cirrhosis from other causes.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that its decision to limit findings to the specific disability of the lead complainant (chronic hepatitis C) was consistent with its established approach to the special diet litigation.

The Tribunal reiterated that it acts as an arbiter of individual rights violations, not as a designer of the government's social welfare programs.

The Tribunal determined the appropriate remedial order for two cases of discrimination regarding the Special Diet Allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The respondent argued it should be entitled to apply the retroactive benefits owed to the complainants towards their pre-existing overpayments.

The Tribunal held that, to meaningfully remedy the discrimination and place the complainants in the position they would have been in absent the Code violation, the respondent must pay the retroactive benefits directly to the complainants without deducting the overpayments.

The complainants, who receive Ontario Disability Support Program benefits and have been diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C, alleged that the special diet allowance program discriminated against them on the basis of disability.

Applying the test from Ball v. Ontario, the Tribunal found that there is general recognition in the Ontario medical community that individuals with chronic hepatitis C require modifications to a regular healthy diet, specifically increased protein and energy.

The Tribunal concluded that the complainants established disability-based discrimination and ordered the respondent to provide retroactive and ongoing special diet allowances for chronic hepatitis C.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal that reinstated the respondent's benefits.

The Director argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the respondent filed her appeal more than two years after the Director's decision, contrary to the one-year absolute limit in O. Reg. 222/98.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the regulation valid and holding that the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction by hearing the late appeal.

The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal's order was set aside.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision finding that the respondent was discriminated against due to the lack of a special diet allowance for hypoproteinemia under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The Divisional Court reviewed the Tribunal's decision on a reasonableness standard.

The Court found that there was no evidence before the Tribunal to support its finding that eating additional protein from food sources is generally recognized in the Ontario medical community as an appropriate treatment for hypoproteinemia.

Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was deemed unreasonable and quashed regarding the respondent's claim for a special diet allowance for elevated protein requirements.

The applicant filed an Application relating to the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance programs.

The Tribunal directed that the Application be treated in accordance with the 'lead case' procedure established in Ball v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), unless the parties provide compelling reasons not to do so.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that extended the period for the respondent government to comply with an order regarding special diet benefits.

The Commission argued that the Tribunal was functus officio and lacked the power to extend the compliance period.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the doctrine of functus officio does not restrict administrative tribunals more than courts, and that the Tribunal has the power to extend time periods for compliance with ordered remedies, similar to the Supreme Court of Canada in Charter cases.

The respondents, who suffered from severe alcoholism, were denied disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act (ODSPA) because s. 5(2) disqualifies individuals whose sole impairment is substance dependence.

The Social Benefits Tribunal found this provision discriminated against the respondents based on disability, contrary to s. 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court upheld this decision but proposed a new test for discrimination.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected the Divisional Court's new test, finding it improperly removed the requirement to prove disadvantage and reversed the burden of proof.

However, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's finding that s. 5(2) of the ODSPA was discriminatory and rejecting the appellant's expert evidence that the policy was medically appropriate.