Court File and Parties
CITATION: Stentsiotis v. Social Benefits Tribunal, 2011 ONSC 5948
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 88/11
DATE: 20111006
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
PARDU, SWINTON AND HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
BETWEEN:
KATHY STENTSIOTIS Applicant
– and –
SOCIAL BENEFITS TRIBUNAL, THE DIRECTOR OF THE ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM Respondents
Counsel:
In Person
M. Jill Dougherty, for the Respondent, Social Benefits Tribunal
Michelle M. Schrieder, for the Respondent, Director
HEARD at Toronto: October 6, 2011
Oral Reasons for Judgment
SWINTON J. (ORALLY)
[1] This application for judicial review is dismissed.
[2] Judicial review is a discretionary remedy. It is not available when the applicant has an adequate alternative remedy, except in special circumstances (Harelkin v. University of Regina, 1979 18 (SCC), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561 at pp. 19-20 of the Quicklaw version). As well, an application may be refused when there has been undue delay in pursuing it (Gigliotti v. Conseil d’Administration du Collège des Grands Lacs, 2005 23326 (ON SCDC), [2005] O.J. No. 2762 (Div. Ct.) at para. 26).
[3] The applicant had a right to appeal the decisions of the Social Benefits Tribunal on a question of law (s. 31 of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 25, Sch. B). There is a thirty day time limit for an appeal (see O.R. 222/78, s.70(1)).
[4] The applicant did not appeal within the time limit. To allow her to bring an application for judicial review now would be to undermine the legislative scheme for review of the Tribunal’s decisions. She had an adequate alternative remedy that she should have pursued. There are no exceptional circumstances that would lead us to grant judicial review.
[5] Moreover, there has been undue delay in bringing this application, particularly with respect to the first decision of the Tribunal made in January 2009. That delay has not been adequately explained. That is a further reason to deny relief.
[6] In any event, there is no merit to the application. The applicant submits that the consequences of inheriting a house from her mother should not disentitle her to ODSP benefits. She says her mother intended to leave the house to her grandson but died before she had a chance to change her will. In law, this does not make the applicant’s son the owner of the house. The applicant was the legal owner of the house because of her mother’s will, and the Tribunal did not err in concluding she was disentitled to benefits. The Tribunal had ample evidence to support the two decisions, and it made no error of law.
[7] Therefore, the application for judicial review is dismissed. No order for costs.
SWINTON J.
PARDU J.
HARVISON YOUNG J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 6, 2011
Date of Release: October 18, 2011
CITATION: Stentsiotis v. Social Benefits Tribunal, 2011 ONSC 5948
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 88/11
DATE: 20111006
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
PARDU, SWINTON AND HARVISON YOUNG JJ.
BETWEEN:
KATHY STENTSIOTIS Applicant
– and –
SOCIAL BENEFITS TRIBUNAL, THE DIRECTOR OF THE ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 6, 2011
Date of Release: October 18, 2011