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 applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services by the Ontario Disability Support Program based on ethnic origin and disability.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding ethnic origin, finding no evidence beyond the applicant's speculation to link the alleged unfair treatment to his ethnic origin.

However, the Tribunal allowed the disability discrimination allegation to proceed, as there was a factual dispute regarding whether the respondent knew or ought to have known that the applicant's inability to attend in-person meetings was related to his physical disability.

The applicant requested to re-activate his human rights application after it was deferred pending a Social Benefit Tribunal decision.

The respondents requested a summary hearing and the removal of three personal respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and directed a summary hearing.

The Tribunal also removed the personal respondents, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against them personally as they were acting within the scope of their employment in administering the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing based on marital status and receipt of public assistance after being denied a Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB).

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether to reactivate the application following a Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the SBT had appropriately dealt with the substance of the public assistance allegation under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, and that the marital status allegation had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation, marital status, and family status regarding the denial of Ontario Works benefits and interim assistance.

The applications were deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's appeals to the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT).

After the SBT dismissed his appeals, the applicant requested to reactivate his human rights applications.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario allowed the late reactivation requests but dismissed both applications.

The first application was dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the SBT had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the discrimination allegations.

The second application, which alleged the SBT discriminated against the applicant by denying interim assistance, was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the SBT's adjudicative decisions are protected by judicial immunity.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled half-day preliminary hearing, citing potential upcoming surgery and a dental appointment.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal dismissed the adjournment request, noting that the surgery date was speculative and a dental appointment was insufficient grounds for an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant was permitted to renew the request if imminent surgery was confirmed with medical documentation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities because of disability.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities, and contracts because of disability and reprisal.

A summary hearing was scheduled, and the applicant's request for an adjournment was denied.

The applicant failed to attend the summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing to obtain counsel and finish a course, and indicated an intention to record the hearing.

The respondents consented to the adjournment but opposed the recording and requested the hearing proceed in writing.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances as required by its Practice Direction.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to record the hearing subject to undertakings not to publish it.

The respondents' request for a written hearing was denied because section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code entitles parties to an oral hearing before final disposition.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and marital status after her Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits were cancelled.

The respondent cancelled the benefits because the applicant's roommate, whom she had previously declared as her spouse, experienced an increase in income.

The respondent brought a request to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent's decision to treat the applicant and her roommate as spouses was based on their own statutory declarations and the application of the ODSPA, and did not raise an arguable claim of discrimination under the Code.

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.