CITATION: Kayonga v. Social Benefits Tribunal et al., 2026 ONSC 4848
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-25-00000729-0000
DATE: 20260824
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: RODRIGUE KAYONGA, Appellant
AND:
SOCIAL BENEFITS TRIBUNAL AND MINISTRY OF CHILDREN COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondents
BEFORE: McWatt ACJ.
COUNSEL: Self Represented, for the Appellant
Jonelle Van Delft (Social Benefits Tribunal), for the Respondent
Cheryl Ellison (Ministry of Children Community and Social Services), for the Respondent
HEARD: in writing
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The Appellant, Rodrigue Kayonga, is appealing a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), dated May 6, 2025, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the Administrator’s decision to assess an overpayment against the Appellant in the amount of $1601 for the period of November 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023.
[2] The Tribunal’s decision contains no errors of law and is correct.
The Appeal should be dismissed for the following reasons:
[3] The Appellant requested to include evidence in this appeal which he claims was omitted from the Record. By Direction dated June 16, 2026, Justice Brownstone ordered that the Respondent should outline its position on this evidence in their material. The Respondent subsequently did not oppose the inclusion of the documents the Appellant has requested to include in the Record as they were included in his submissions for the Tribunal appeal. Nonetheless, the Appellant has filed none of this material.
[4] The Appellant submits that Ontario Works (OW) should have discussed the overpayment with him during his intake process, that his caseworker was changed, that he had difficulty discussing the overpayment with OW and that the Administrator could have confirmed the overpayment earlier.
[5] The Appellant submits that the Administrator operated in bad faith when it assessed the overpayment. He submits he was upfront during the August/September 2024 intake process and that no discussion was had regarding a potential overpayment which he only became aware of upon receipt of the September 11, 2024 decision letter. The Appellant also submits that his OW caseworker changed during this period and that he had difficulty communicating with the Administrator which he felt contributed to their bad faith.
[6] The Appellant also argues that the length of time from the actual overpayment period to when it was eventually assessed was unreasonable. The Appellant submits the Administrator could have made more through efforts to establish the overpayment around the actual overpayment period but neglected to.
[7] The Tribunal addressed all these arguments in its decision and found that the evidence indicated that the Appellant was reasonably aware that he would have to repay the Better Jobs Ontario (BJO) funding given that he had been provided with the Agreement to Reimburse form in order to receive such payments.
[8] The Tribunal also acknowledged the Appellant’s position that the Administrator ought to have assessed the overpayment sooner but found that the Administrator ultimately did not become aware of accurate information regarding the amount of BJO funding the Appellant had received until September 2024.
[9] It was unclear to the Tribunal if or what steps the Administrator might have been able to undertake to secure this information on its own. At the same time the evidence supports that the Appellant had this information and ultimately did not disclose it until September 2024. Although the Tribunal accepts the Appellant’s testimony that he believed the matter regarding his BJO income was moot upon his December 2023 suspension and subsequent file closure, the Tribunal was not persuaded this position overall warranted the reduction of the overpayment or that it was to be deemed uncollectible.
[10] The Appellant is attempting to reargue his Tribunal appeal which is not the purpose of an appeal to this Court. The Appellant is also disputing the weighing of the evidence which is not a ground of appeal nor a potential error of law.
[11] In any event, none of these assertions demonstrate that the overpayment was incorrect or that there was an error of law in the Tribunal’s decision.
[12] The Appellant also fails in his argument that the Tribunal was incorrect to apply the BJO funding payment he received in December, 2023 to an overpayment for November, 2023.
[13] The Tribunal considered the Appellant’s testimony that he received an initial lump sum on December 12, 2023. The breakdown of his BJO payments confirmed a funding start date of November 6, 2023. Based on this evidence the Tribunal was persuaded the Appellant was eligible for BJO funding effective November 6, 2023, and that his initial lump sum was likely the amount of BJO funding he was owed during the gap from November 6 to December 12, 2023.
[14] The Tribunal concluded that as per section 48(3) of the Regulation, the Administrator acted appropriately when it applied this income to the months it was intended to cover, which based on the breakdown, included November 2023.
[15] The appeal is dismissed.
_______________________________
Faye E. McWatt ACJ.
Released: August 24, 2026