CITATION: Sheldrick v. Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services), 2008 ONCA 509

DATE: 20080624

DOCKET: C48147

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

BLAIR, JURIANSZ and EPSTEIN JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

DEBBIE SHELDRICK

Appellant (Respondent)

and

DIRECTOR OF THE ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM OF THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

Respondent (Appellant)

Rebecca Givens and Cheryl Ellison for the appellant

James Arenburg for the respondent

Heard: June 23, 2008

On appeal from the order of the Divisional Court (Justices Jennings, Stach and Gauthier) dated March 19, 2007.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] In our opinion the appeal must be allowed. An appeal lies to the Divisional Court from a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal on a question of law. Here, which the Divisional Court characterized the Tribunal’s error as one of law, it seems to us that it was in substance disagreeing with the Tribunal’s weighing of the evidence.

[2] The Tribunal considered and weighed all of the evidence before it, including the report of Dr. Davidson and that of the psychologist, Dr. Bassis. It explained in its reasons why that evidence, when viewed in the context of all the evidence before it, including the “Activities of Daily Living” and the appellant’s own testimony was not determinative of the “substantial impairment” requirement. It was open to the Tribunal to do so on the record. Respectfully, we do not agree with the Divisional Court that the Tribunal was either required “to accept” that evidence or that it disregarded or failed to appreciate the relevant medical evidence.

[3] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and the decision of the Divisional Court set aside. The appellant does not seek costs.