CITATION: Neil Brown v. OW/OSBT, 2015 ONSC 3654
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-14-616-ML
DATE: 2015-06-05
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
(DIVISIONAL COURT)
RE: Neil Brown, Moving Party (Appellant on Appeal)
A N D:
OW/OSBT, Responding Party (Respondent on Appeal)
BEFORE: Justices Swinton, Ellies and Howard
COUNSEL: Neil Brown, Self-Represented Moving Party (Appellant on Appeal)
Dana Lezau, Respondent (Respondent on Appeal)
Ministry of Community and Social Services, no-one appearing
HEARD: June 5th, 2015
E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] Section 36(1) of the Ontario Works Act, 1997 permits an appeal to the Divisional Court from a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) on a question of law.
[2] Mr. Brown, the Appellant before us, obtained an Order on January 13, 2015, extending the time to file his material for this appeal. Although there may have been some procedural irregularities with respect to that Order, we are satisfied that the Respondents had notice of today’s hearing through the Court Office notices, and so have proceeded.
[3] Mr. Brown argues that he was denied procedural fairness by the Tribunal because he was not allowed to have an in-person hearing.
[4] The Tribunal has the discretion to hold a telephone or “electronic hearing” pursuant to sections 5.2 and 25.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and Practice Direction 3 of the Tribunal if satisfied that there will be no significant prejudice to the parties.
[5] The Tribunal Member’s notes of the telephone hearing (found at pp. 74-79 of the Tribunal’s Record of Proceedings) show that Mr. Brown was given an opportunity to present his case and to respond to the Director’s witness. In our view, he suffered no prejudice because the hearing was by telephone.
[6] We are also satisfied that Mr. Brown was treated fairly in respect of the application for reconsideration.
[7] In his appeal to the Tribunal, Mr. Brown challenged the suspension of his Ontario Works benefits. In his appeal to this Court, he has not shown that the Tribunal made any error of law in upholding that suspension.
[8] For these reasons, the Appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Swinton, J.
Ellies J.
Howard J.
DATE: June 5th, 2015
CITATION: Neil Brown v. OW/OSBT, 2015 ONSC 3654
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-14-616-ML
DATE: 2015-06-05
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
(DIVISIONAL COURT)
RE: Neil Brown Moving Party(Appellant on Appeal)
A N D:
OW/OSBT, Responding Party (Respondent on Appeal)
BEFORE: Justices Swinton, Ellies, Howard
COUNSEL: Neil Brown, Moving Party (Appellant on Appeal) self-represented
Dana Lezau, Responding Party (Respondent on Appeal)
ENDORSEMENT
SWINTON, ELLIES, HOWARD J.J.