Michelle M. Schrieder

The appellant appealed a decision of the Tribunal denying Ontario Disability Support Program benefits on the basis that the appellant did not have a substantial impairment.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in law by incorrectly applying the governing legal principles to the medical evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal correctly stated the law and that the appellant's arguments merely challenged the Tribunal's weighing of the evidence, which does not constitute an error of law.

The applicants, who were recipients of Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after being denied funding to apply for a criminal pardon.

They argued that such funding was available to able-bodied recipients of Ontario Works (OW) benefits but not to them.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were not subjected to discrimination, as OW discretionary benefits for employment-related expenses, including pardons, were available to both OW and ODSP recipients.

Furthermore, the applicants eventually received $500 each in Employment and Training Start Up Benefit (ESUB) under ODSP to assist with the costs of pardons.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicants, who receive ODSP benefits, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after being denied funding to apply for a criminal pardon.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several Requests for an Order During Proceedings (RFOPs).

The Tribunal granted the applicants' unopposed request to amend their applications.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request to amend its response to include new information that it had recently approved the funding request, finding the amendment timely and without prejudice to the applicants.

The applicants, who are in receipt of ODSP benefits, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability because they were denied funding to apply for a criminal pardon, which is available to OW recipients.

The applicants requested to consolidate their applications and the applicant Megan Hinsley requested to amend her application.

The respondent requested summary hearings.

The Tribunal granted the requests to consolidate and amend, and denied the respondent's requests for summary hearings.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that its jurisdiction was limited to questions of law and the appellant had only challenged findings of fact and the weighing of evidence.

The court found the Tribunal applied the proper legal test, adequately considered the medical evidence regarding the appellant's physical limitations, and reasonably factored in his refusal to take recommended medication.

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

The Tribunal found the appellant had a substantial impairment but not a substantial restriction in activities of daily living.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Tribunal's weighing of the medical evidence and concluding that the Tribunal's reasons were adequate and reasonable.

The self-represented appellant succeeded on his appeal to the Divisional Court and sought costs for the hearing before the Social Benefits Tribunal and disbursements for the appeal.

The court held it had no jurisdiction to award costs before the Tribunal.

The court awarded the appellant $941.80 in disbursements for the appeal, deducting $300 claimed for parking and meals for a group who helped him, but allowing $100 for office services.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal test and made no palpable and overriding error in its factual conclusions.

The court also held that the appellant's human rights and Charter claims were not properly before it, and that his request for retroactive benefits to 2003 was precluded because earlier applications had been abandoned.

On a preliminary issue in an appeal, the Divisional Court ruled that the Social Benefits Tribunal was not properly a party to the proceeding.

The court noted there was no separate relief claimed by the appellant that was not available against the Ministry, and no jurisdictional issue was raised.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant appealed a Social Benefits Tribunal decision denying him supplementary benefits for medical transportation and surgical supplies under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the Tribunal erred in law by failing to address the appellant's uncontradicted evidence that he had submitted the required form for medical transportation costs.

The matter was referred back to the Director to determine the amount of transportation benefits owed.

The appeal regarding surgical supplies was dismissed as no error of law was shown.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Social Benefits Tribunal that found her disentitled to ODSP benefits after she inherited a house from her mother.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had an adequate alternative remedy in the form of a statutory right of appeal, which she failed to pursue within the time limit.

The court also noted undue delay in bringing the application and found no merit to the substantive arguments, as the applicant was the legal owner of the inherited house.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of social assistance benefits.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending a Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) appeal and whether to remove several individually named respondents.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application because the SBT matter had concluded.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed the personal respondents, finding that the corporate respondent was liable and capable of responding to the allegations.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's premature request for document production and his request for an order directing the Human Rights Legal Support Centre to provide him with legal services.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on marital status and receipt of public assistance after being denied start-up benefits for housing.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had appealed the denial to the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT), which was currently considering the discrimination claim.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the SBT had the authority to interpret and apply the Human Rights Code and there was a clear overlap in facts and issues.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the SBT appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the Director's finding that he was not a 'person with a disability' under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997.

The Tribunal found the appellant had a substantial impairment due to back pain but no substantial restriction in activities of daily living.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the standard of review was correctness for questions of law, the Tribunal did not apply an incorrect test, the evidentiary findings were open to the Tribunal, and the reasons were adequate.

The applicant sought judicial review of two 2004 decisions denying him disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

He had failed to appeal the decisions to the Social Benefits Tribunal within the statutory time limit.

In 2008, he reapplied with new medical evidence and was granted benefits, but sought to have the grant made retroactive to 2004.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the judicial review due to the applicant's five-year delay and his failure to pursue his statutory right of appeal.

The appellant appealed a Social Benefits Tribunal decision that directed his retroactive disability benefits be paid to his ex-wife, who was the head of their 'benefit unit' prior to their separation.

The Divisional Court agreed with the Tribunal's interpretation that the benefits were for the benefit unit as a whole while the parties cohabited.

However, the Court found that the Director should have exercised administrative powers to ensure both parties received an equal share, given they were separated when entitlement was determined.

The Director was ordered to pay the appellant one half of the retroactive benefits.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal, which found that monthly child support payments made by the respondent's father to her mother were not income to the respondent under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The respondent, an adult with severe disabilities, received income support.

The Director had deducted the child support payments from her income support.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the Tribunal's conclusion that the payments were intended to compensate the mother for caregiving and were not income paid to or on behalf of the respondent.