CITATION: Kim v. Ontario (Director, Ontario Disability Support Program), 2018 ONSC 2383
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 595/17 DATE: 20180412
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
MORAWETZ RSJ, C. HORKINS and TZIMAS JJ.
BETWEEN:
KI HO KIM
Ki Ho Kim, acting in person
Appellant
– and –
THE DIRECTOR OF THE ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM
Michelle Schrieder, for the Respondent
Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: April 12, 2018
C. HORKINS J. (Orally)
[1] The appellant, Ki Ho Kim is a former recipient of income support under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 25, Sched. B (“ODSPA”).
[2] In February 2016, the appellant’s request for a medical transportation benefit under the ODSPA was approved. This benefit is an extended health benefit that is available to former recipients of income support under the ODSPA.
[3] The Director decided that the benefit would be paid directly to the taxi company.
[4] The appellant took issue with the direct payment decision. He claimed that he experienced ill treatment from taxi drivers who inferred from the pay direct arrangement that he was an ODSP recipient. As well, he believed that the direct payment was not authorized under s. 13 of the ODSPA because extended health benefits are not “income support”.
[5] The appellant requested an internal review of the Director’s decision to pay the taxi company directly. The Director refused this request and the appellant appealed this decision to the Social Benefits Tribunal (the “Tribunal”).
[6] Before the Tribunal, the appellant argued that the Director’s decision was “not legal” or supported by the law. Specifically the appellant argued that extended health benefits do not constitute “income support” and therefore paragraph 3 of s. 21(2) of the ODSPA does not apply.
[7] Section 21(2) of the ODSPA sets out when the Director’s decision can be appealed. The section states as follows:
21 (1) Any decision of the Director affecting eligibility for or the amount of income support, assistance under section 49 or extended health benefits under section 49.1, other than a decision referred to in subsection (2), may be appealed to the Tribunal.
(2) No appeal lies to the Tribunal with respect to the following matters:
A decision respecting discretionary income support.
A decision of the Lieutenant Governor in Council respecting income support in exceptional circumstances.
A decision to provide a portion of income support directly to a third party.
A variation, refusal or cancellation of income support caused by an amendment to this Act or the regulations.
A prescribed decision.
[Emphasis added]
[8] On July 7 2017, the Tribunal decided that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the Director’s decision to pay the appellant’s medical transportation benefit directly to the taxi company.
[9] The Tribunal relied on s. 21(2) paragraph 3 and found that the appellant had no right to appeal “[a] decision to provide a portion of income support directly to a third party”. The Tribunal reasons are found at para. 4 as follows:
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Director’s decision is illegal or that these monies at issue are excluded as income support for the purposes of assessing and administering assistance under the Act. Section 21(2) of the Act states that “[n]o appeal lies to the Tribunal with respect to the following matters…3. A decision to provide a portion of income support directly to a third party.” The Tribunal finds that any reference to ‘income support’ also includes any financial assistance to cover “costs related to a person’s disability and other prescribed needs”. s2 of the Act The Tribunal finds that is the case here. The Appellant had medical impairments for which he incurred costs in attending medical appointments and treatment. In order to financially assist with his prescribed needs, the Director issued monies to the taxi company on behalf of the Appellant in order to cover the costs the Appellant incurred for medical transportation in a month.
[10] Further the Tribunal found that there was no persuasive or credible evidence that the appellant experienced any mistreatment as a result of the Director’s decision to pay the taxi service directly.
[11] The appellant’s request for a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s July 7 decision was denied on September 5 2017. The appellant appeals the Tribunal’s decisions to this court.
[12] The standard of review of the Tribunal’s decision is reasonableness as confirmed in Corrigan v Ontario (Director, Ontario Disability Support Program), 2016 ONSC 6212. The Tribunal is a specialized administrative body and its decisions are entitled to deference.
[13] On this appeal, the appellant makes that same argument that he did before the Tribunal. He says that the extended health benefits are not “income support” and therefore paragraph 3 of s. 21 (2) does not apply to bar his appeal. On this basis, he argues that the Tribunal’s decision was unreasonable because the Tribunal failed to draw the distinction between extended health benefits and “income support”.
[14] It is not necessary to decide if extended health benefits are distinct from “income support” that is addressed in paragraph 3 of s. 21(2). Whether extended health benefits are included in income support or not is irrelevant to the appellant’s right of appeal. This is because s. 21(1) of the ODSPA limits the appellant’s right of appeal to decisions of the Director affecting eligibility for or the amount of extended health benefits. The Director’s decision to pay the taxi company directly is not an issue of eligibility for the medical travel benefit or an issue about the amount of this benefit. As a result, I find that the Director’s decision was reasonable and this appeal is dismissed.
[15] The Director is not seeking costs and so there is no cost order.
MORAWETZ RSJ.
[16] I have endorsed the back of the Appeal Book and Compendium as follows: “For oral reasons delivered today, the appeal is dismissed. There is no order respecting costs”.
___________________________ C. HORKINS J.
I agree
MORAWETZ RSJ.
I agree
TZIMAS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 12, 2018
Date of Release: April 13, 2018
CITATION: Kim v. Ontario (Director, Ontario Disability Support Program), 2018 ONSC 2383
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 595/17 DATE: 20180412
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
MORAWETZ RSJ, C. HORKINS and TZIMAS JJ.
BETWEEN:
KI HO KIM
Appellant
– and –
THE DIRECTOR OF THE ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
C. HORKINS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 12, 2018
Date of Release: April 13, 2018