CITATION: Volnyansky v. Regional Municipality of Peel, 2014 ONSC 6193
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-13-0013-00 DATE: 20141023
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Hambly, D. Brown and Gilmore JJ.
BETWEEN:
Lubov Volnyansky Applicant
– and –
The Regional Municipality of Peel Respondent
Applicant In Person M. Wong, for the Respondent, The Regional Municipality of Peel L. Chen, for the Social Benefits Tribunal
HEARD at Brampton: October 23, 2014
D. Brown J. (orally)
1The Notice of Application for Judicial Review seeks to review the following decisions of the Social Benefits Tribunal:
(i) Decision 0712–13291/R dated November 4, 2009 in which the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Administrator to assess an overpayment for shelter assistance provided between November, 2006 and November, 2007 in the amount of $3,937.44 and ordered that the amount should be recovered (the “Shelter Assistance Decision”);
(ii) Decision 0812–10542/R made September 11, 2009 affirming the decision of the Administrator in assessing the applicant with an overpayment of $1,314.50 because she received Ontario Works assistance as well as support payments (the “Support Payments Decision”);
(iii) Decision 0904–03055/R made January 20, 2010 affirming the Administrator’s decision to cancel the applicant’s financial assistance because her income was greater than her entitlement (the “Assistance Cancellation Decision”).
2Section 36(1) of the Ontario Works Act, 1997, states that “any party to a hearing may appeal the Tribunal’s decision to the Divisional Court on a question of law”. Ontario Regulation 134/98 made under the Ontario Works Act, 1997 stipulates, in s. 81(1), that a person appealing a decision of the Tribunal to the Divisional Court shall file a notice of appeal with the Divisional Court within 30 days after receiving the decision.
3The applicant appealed the Assistance Cancellation Decision to the Divisional Court which dismissed her appeal by reasons dated November 3, 2010. In light of that decision, no ground exists for the applicant to seek judicial review of the Assistance Cancellation Decision.
4The applicant did not appeal from the Shelter Assistance Decision or Support Payments Decision to the Divisional Court. Instead, in November and December, 2009, she commenced two actions in the Superior Court of Justice seeking relief in respect of those two decisions. The applicant named the Regional Municipality of Peel as a defendant in both Statements of Claim. Both actions were dismissed by Gray J. on May 26, 2010, over four years ago. The claims against Peel therefore have been decided and dismissed.
5Moreover, the Ontario Works Act, 1997 provided the applicant with an adequate alternative remedy to review the Tribunal’s Shelter Assistance Decision and Support Payments Decision. She did not pursue that remedy. Five years have passed. The applicant has not brought forward any evidence explaining why she did not pursue her statutory rights of appeal or describing any special circumstances which would justify this court in exercising its discretion in an extraordinary manner to permit consideration of the applicants application for judicial review after such a long passage of time and her failure to pursue her appeal remedies.
6Finally, the substance of the Applicant’s application is that various calculations of overpayments affirmed by the Tribunal were incorrect. The review sought by the applicant of the Shelter Assistance Decision and Support Payments Decision does not raise a question of law. The applicant challenges the accuracy of the over-payment calculations. That involves a question of fact, not a question of law. Therefore that is not a matter reviewable by the Divisional Court. For those reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________ D. Brown J.
Hambly J.
Gilmore J.
Released: October 23, 2014
CITATION: Volnyansky v. Regional Municipality of Peel, 2014 ONSC 6193
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-13-0013-00 DATE: 20141023
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Hambly, D. Brown and Gilmore JJ.
BETWEEN:
Lubov Volnyansky Applicant
– and –
The Regional Municipality of Peel Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
D. Brown J.
Released: October 23, 2014