McKinnon v. Social Benefits Tribunal, 2012 ONSC 789
CITATION: McKinnon v. Social Benefits Tribunal, 2012 ONSC 789
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 481/10
DATE: 20120201
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
ASTON, NEWBOULD AND EDWARDS JJ.
BETWEEN:
STEVE MCKINNON Appellant
– and –
SOCIAL BENEFITS TRIBUNAL Respondent
- and –
MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM Respondent
In Person
Randy Schroeder, for the Respondent, Social Benefits Tribunal
Michelle M. Schrieder, for the Respondent, Ministry of Community and Social Services
HEARD at Toronto: February 1, 2012
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ASTON J. (orally)
[1] The appellant, Steven McKinnon seeks to overturn the decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal, finding him ineligible for disability benefits because he was not a person with a disability according to the statutory definition in s.4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act (“ODSPA”).
[2] Mr. McKinnon alleges that the Tribunal erred in its decision and violated the Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedom. He seeks ODSP benefits retroactively to the date of his first application back in 2003, as well as costs and punitive damages.
[3] Mr. McKinnon first applied for ODSP benefits in or about April, 2003. That application was denied. There followed a series of challenges to that decision which led up to a new application being filed on December 15, 2008. At around that time or shortly after it, Mr. McKinnon abandoned his outstanding appeal and his outstanding judicial review application. The new application started on December 15, 2008, came before the Director of the Disability Adjudication Unit who found that Mr. McKinnon was not a person with a substantial disability as defined in the “Act”. That decision was dated May 27, 2009. It was followed by an internal review which confirmed the decision and an appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal which was heard on November 25, 2009 with a decision rendered January 25, 2010. That decision by the Tribunal affirmed the Director’s May 27, 2009 decision and is the basis of this appeal. Mr. McKinnon brought challenges by way of a Reconsideration request which was denied on June 29, 2010 and a second Request for Reconsideration, which was denied September 14, 2010.
[4] Subsequent to the appeal that is now before the Court being started, Mr. McKinnon reapplied for ODSP benefits in December 2010, with new medical evidence and a new psychological report. On that new application he was found eligible for benefits effective June 1, 2011. By way of clarification, in the oral submissions before the Court today, Mr. McKinnon has confirmed that we are concerned only with the time period between December 15, 2008 and the effective date that he has been found eligible for benefits which is June 1, 2011.
[5] The Divisional Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Social Benefits Tribunal only on a question of law. See subsections 31(1) and (5) of the ODSPA. The question of whether or not an applicant is eligible for income support under the Act involves an analysis of a test that is set out in s.4(1) of the ODSPA.
[6] The Court of Appeal, in the case of Crane v. Ontario (Director, Disability Support Progam), 2006 38348 (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 4546 at para. 25 summarizes the statutory test as follows:
In summary, s.4(1) of the ODSPA presents three questions – substantial impairment, substantial restriction in certain activities, and verification. These are separate questions that require separate analysis and answers. The onus is on the claimant to establish all three factors. Accordingly, if the Tribunal concludes that the claimant has failed to establish one of the factors, it need not deal with the other factors.
[7] Whether the test is met under the statutory definition is primarily a question of fact in any individual case. The standard of review on appeals from the Social Benefits Tribunal on a question of law is correctness. The respondent agrees that that is the appropriate standard of review. The first issue for us to consider is whether the Tribunal erred in law in deciding that the appellant was not a person with a disability within the meaning of the Act.
[8] In our view, Mr. McKinnon is attempting to reargue the facts of his case on this appeal. The Tribunal decision does not contain any identified errors of law. The Tribunal applied the correct legal test. (See the fourth paragraph at page 3 of its decision).
[9] An appeal to this Court is not available to weigh evidence anew. The Social Benefits Tribunal already considered and weighed all of the evidence, including medical evidence and oral testimony. It found that the appellant was not a person with a substantial disability as defined in the Act.
[10] We are unable to identify any palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal’s factual conclusions.
[11] The second issue raised by Mr. McKinnon is with respect to violation of the Human Rights Code or his Charter rights. This question or the issue was not dealt with by the Social Benefits Tribunal at a Stage Two Hearing. Mr. McKinnon agrees today that this issue is not properly before us.
[12] The final issue has to do with whether Mr. McKinnon is entitled to seek ODSP benefits retroactively to 2003 as requested. As already noted, the issue on appeal here is the decision of January 25, 2010 which affirmed the May 27, 2009 decision of the Director. Every application is separate and distinct under the legislation. Any question of entitlement for the period predating the present application, which was started in December 2008, was put to rest when the appeals and judicial review application relating to earlier decisions were abandoned.
COSTS
[13] I have endorsed the Appeal Book on behalf of the panel, “For oral reasons given, this appeal is dismissed without costs.”
ASTON J.
NEWBOULD J.
EDWARDS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 1, 2012
Date of Release: February 7, 2012
CITATION: McKinnon v. Social Benefits Tribunal, 2012 ONSC 789
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 481/10
DATE: 20120201
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
ASTON, NEWBOULD AND EDWARDS JJ.
BETWEEN:
STEVE MCKINNON Appellant
– and –
SOCIAL BENEFITS TRIBUNAL Respondent
- and –
MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR, ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ASTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 1, 2012
Date of Release: February 7, 2012