Other Tribunals - ODC

The appellants appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the Director's finding that the appellant was not financially eligible for ODSP income support due to her receipt of long-term disability insurance benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's decision involved a question of mixed fact and law, which is not appealable under the ODSPA, and that the Tribunal's conclusion was reasonable.

The appellant, an ODSP recipient, appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which held that the 'cost of transportation' for medical travel by private vehicle under O. Reg. 222/98 was limited to operating costs and excluded ownership costs.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's interpretation unreasonable.

The Court held that the plain meaning, context, and purpose of the legislation did not support excluding ownership costs from the calculation of the medical transportation benefit, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for redetermination.

The applicant, a former TTC bus driver, sought judicial review of a decision by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying his claim for lost income following his retirement.

The Board had awarded him partial wage loss for a period prior to his retirement, finding that a workplace assault exacerbated his psychological issues, but denied wage loss post-retirement based on a WSIB report concluding his issues were unrelated to the assault.

The Divisional Court quashed the Board's decision, finding it unreasonable because the Board reached contradictory conclusions on causation without adequate explanation and improperly relied on selective quotes from a WSIB decision rather than the actual medical evidence before it.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the suspension of his Ontario Works benefits.

He argued he was denied procedural fairness because the Tribunal held a telephone hearing rather than an in-person hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal had discretion to hold an electronic hearing, the appellant suffered no prejudice, and he failed to demonstrate any error of law in the Tribunal's decision.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal denying her application for ODSP benefits.

She argued the Tribunal erred in law by ignoring evidence, misinterpreting the definition of a person with a disability, and failing to provide adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal correctly applied the legal test, reasonably weighed the evidence regarding her activities of daily living and employability, and provided adequate reasons that demonstrated its logical path.

The Registrar appealed a decision of the Licence Appeals Tribunal that ordered the re-registration of the respondent as a real estate salesperson with conditions.

The Registrar had initially refused the application based on the respondent's history of financial and legal problems.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal reasonably considered the whole of the respondent's conduct, including recent evidence that he was turning his life around, and appropriately imposed conditions to protect the public.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Municipal Board decision that dismissed parts of her appeal regarding a municipal Official Plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application on the basis that the applicant had an adequate alternative remedy.

Specifically, the applicant failed to request a review or rehearing under section 43 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act, which provides a statutory mechanism to address her claims of procedural unfairness.

The court noted that allowing the judicial review would undermine the legislative scheme, which requires leave to appeal Board decisions.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal finding he did not meet the definition of a person with a disability under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by misapprehending new medical evidence filed before the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal correctly weighed the new evidence, determining it was either inconsistent with earlier reports or reflected a deterioration in condition after the Director's decision.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board regarding whether her Master's degree program was "primarily psychological in nature." The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board conducted a detailed and nuanced examination of the material and that its decision was not demonstrably unreasonable.

The Court noted it was bound to afford deference to the Board's expertise.

No costs were ordered.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarding her $5,000 for loss of income and $1,200 for future therapy following assaults by her former husband.

She argued the Board erred in attributing her psychological condition and inability to work to factors other than the assaults, and in failing to apply the 'thin skull' rule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded that pre-existing and subsequent stressors contributed to her inability to work, akin to the 'crumbling skull' doctrine, and that the award fell within a range of reasonable outcomes.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal finding him ineligible for disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal test and made no palpable and overriding error in its factual conclusions.

The court also held that the appellant's human rights and Charter claims were not properly before it, and that his request for retroactive benefits to 2003 was precluded because earlier applications had been abandoned.