CITATION: Aston v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2024 ONSC 4058
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-23-00001362-0000
DATE: 20240718
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
FITZPATRICK, O’BRIEN, CULLIN, JJ.
BETWEEN:
Brian Aston
Appellant
– and –
Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program of the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services
Respondent
Stephanie Boomhour, for the Appellant
Mimi Singh, for the Respondent
HEARD: June 27, 2024
REASONS FOR DECISION
Cullin, j.
[1] This is an appeal of a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal (“the SBT”): 2205-01849 (Re), 2022 ONSBT 4357.
[2] The SBT upheld the decision of the Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) which found that the appellant, Brian Aston (“Mr. Aston”), was not eligible for income support benefits because he was not a person with a disability within the meaning of s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 25, Sched. B (the “ODSPA”).
[3] Mr. Aston seeks an order setting aside the decision of the SBT. He seeks a declaration that he is a “person with a disability” and that he is eligible for income support benefits. Alternatively, he asks the court to return the matter to the SBT for a re-hearing by a different tribunal member.
[4] For the reasons that follow, the appeal is denied.
[5] Mr. Aston applied for ODSP benefits on December 9, 2021. His application was denied on April 8, 2022 and an Internal Review dated May 11, 2022 upheld that decision.
[6] Mr. Aston then appealed to the SBT. An appeal hearing was conducted on November 24, 2022 and his appeal was denied on December 13, 2022. His request for a reconsideration of that decision was denied on February 17, 2023.
Standard of Review
[7] The appeal to this Court is made pursuant to s. 31(1) of the ODSPA which provides that any party to a hearing before the SBT may appeal the resulting decision to the Divisional Court. Appeals are limited to questions of law.
[8] The standard of review in this statutory appeal respecting a question of law is correctness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras. 17, 37; Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, at para. 8.
Decision and Evidence Under Review
[9] At the SBT, Mr. Aston bore the onus of establishing that the ODSP’s decision was wrong.
[10] The SBT considered Mr. Aston’s circumstances on the date of the ODSP’s decision. The evidentiary record consisted of Mr. Aston’s oral testimony, as well as medical reports from his family physician. Mr. Aston’s family physician submitted a Health Status Report, an Activities of Daily Living Index, and an Intellectual and Emotional Wellness Scale, as well as a diagnostic imaging record. An updated medical report was provided by Mr. Aston’s family physician following the ODSP decision, but it did not include any additional medical records.
[11] Mr. Aston’s testimony focussed primarily on his personal and household activities. The record included very little evidence regarding his employability and transferrable skills. The information from his family physician consisted of medical reports based on Mr. Aston’s subjective complaints but contained little in the way of supportive, objective medical evidence.
[12] After reviewing the evidence, the SBT was satisfied that there was evidence of impairments and restrictions that: existed on the date of ODSP’s decision; were properly verified as continuous or recurrent; and, were expected to last one year or more. It was not satisfied, however, that Mr. Aston’s impairments were substantial and that they substantially restricted one or more of his activities of daily living.
Analysis
[13] There are limited circumstances in which findings of fact may give rise to an error of law for the purposes of appeal.
[14] It is not the role of the court in an appeal to reconsider or re-weigh the evidence, or to reconsider the tribunal’s findings regarding the sufficiency of the evidence: Jemiolo v. Ontario Disability Support Program, 2009 9420 (ON SCDC), at para. 17.
[15] The SBT’s decision included a thorough review of the evidentiary record and demonstrated that it was alive to the test that it was required to apply in its review of the ODSP decision. In the end, the SBT was not satisfied that the evidence demonstrated that the significance and frequency of Mr. Aston’s impairments rose to the level of substantial. It found that there was a lack of detail regarding Mr. Aston’s impairments and inconsistencies between Mr. Aston’s testimony and the reports of his family physician regarding their severity. Where Mr. Aston’s testimony was unclear, the medical documentation supported only moderate impairment. The Tribunal also found the revised activities of daily living form prepared by Mr. Aston’s physician to provide inflated ratings compared to the more transient complaints Mr. Aston described in his testimony.
[16] The SBT’s findings were available on the record before it and its decision disclosed no errors of law. In the circumstances, Mr. Aston’s appeal must fail.
Disposition & Costs
[17] The appeal is therefore dismissed.
[18] Neither party requested their costs of the appeal and no costs shall be ordered.
Cullin, J.
I agree:
Fitzpatrick, J.
I agree:
O’Brien, J.
Released: July 18, 2024
CITATION: Aston v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2024 ONSC 4058
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-23-00001362-0000
DATE: 20240718
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
FITZPATRICK, O’BRIEN, CULLIN, JJ.
BETWEEN:
Brian Aston
Appellant
– and –
Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program of the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
Cullin J.
Released: July 18, 2024