COURT FILE NO.: 362/08
DATE: 20081127
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
KENT, LEDERMAN AND SWINTON JJ.
B E T W E E N:
MAURICE LARROMANA
Appellant
- and -
DIRECTOR DISABILITY ADJUDICATION UNIT, MCSS
Respondent
In Person
Cheryl Ellison, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: November 27, 2008
kent J.: (Orally)
[1] An appeal lies to this court only on a question of law and the standard of review is, therefore, correctness.
[2] The tribunal held that the appellant is not a person with a disability within the meaning of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, s.4(1) and gave full reasons in support of that finding.
[3] The tribunal weighed all of the evidence including the medical evidence and the appellant’s testimony. It concluded that the appellant did not have a substantial impairment or substantial restriction in his activities of daily living.
[4] The appellant argued that the prognosis considered by the tribunal is a speculative prediction and should not have been considered. We disagree. A prognosis is a component of an overall medical assessment. In addition, it is not the role of the court to reconsider the weighing of the evidence or the conclusions that the tribunal reached concerning the sufficiency or adequacy of the evidence.
[5] The appellant noted that the tribunal did not deliver its decision within sixty days after submissions as required by O.Reg. 222/98 s.67(1), however, he can point to no prejudice as a result of a delay of only a few days.
[6] The tribunal applied the correct legal test as set out in Gray v. Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program (2002), 2002 7805 (ON CA), 59 O.R. (3d) 364 (C.A.) and the tribunal has made no error in law.
[7] For these reasons, the appeal on this issue must be dismissed.
[8] The respondent agrees that the tribunal should have scheduled a second hearing to deal with the appellant’s human rights issue and we remit this matter to the tribunal for a hearing on that issue.
[9] As we advised the appellant in the course of submissions, this court cannot consider his constitutional argument because he has not served the appropriate notices.
[10] I endorse the Appeal Book, “This appeal is dismissed in accordance with reasons delivered orally. No order is made as to costs.”
KENT J.
LEDERMAN J.
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 27, 2008
Date of Release: December 1, 2008
COURT FILE NO.: 362/08
DATE: 20081127
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
KENT, LEDERMAN AND SWINTON JJ.
B E T W E E N:
MAURICE LARROMANA
Appellant
- and -
DIRECTOR DISABILITY ADJUDICATION UNIT, MCSS
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
KENT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 27, 2008
Date of Release: December 1, 2008