COURT FILE NO.: 365/06
DATE: 20070315
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
LANE, CARNWATH AND SWINTON JJ.
B E T W E E N:
FAIZA OMAR
Appellant
- and -
ONTARIO (DIRECTOR, DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM)
Respondent
Joan C. Manafa, for the Appellant
Julia Hood, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: March 15, 2007
SWINTON J.: (Orally)
[1] The appellant submits that there is a conflict between sections 47(7) and 64(1)(a) of Ontario Regulation 222/98, made pursuant to the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.25 and seeks a direction to the Tribunal that it receive new evidence about the appellant’s condition in the period following the Director’s decision.
[2] There is no conflict in the regulations. Section 47(7) directs the Disability Adjudication Unit to review new evidence relating to a person’s disability, while s.64(1)(a) requires the Tribunal to consider new medical evidence only if it relates to the appellant’s condition at the effective date of the Director’s decision.
[3] Pursuant to s.23(3) of the Act, an appeal to the Tribunal shall be conducted in accordance with the regulations. Pursuant to s.23(10), the onus is on the appellant to satisfy the Tribunal that the decision of the Director is wrong. If there is new medical evidence that relates to a new medical condition or an aggravation of an individual’s condition since the Director’s decision, an applicant can reapply for Ontario Disability Support. There will be no direction given to the Tribunal pursuant to s.31(5)(d) of the Act.
[4] The appeal is allowed on consent, and the matter is referred back to the Tribunal differently constituted.
LANE J.
[5] The endorsement on the appeal book is as follows: “On the legal point, the appeal is allowed on consent without directions for reasons delivered orally by Swinton J. The matter is referred to the Tribunal differently constituted for re-hearing. As to costs, the Director asks for costs. In our view, the legal issue, as a matter of first impression and of some importance in the working of the Act, called for a solution in the public interest. No costs are appropriate.”
SWINTON J.
LANE J.
CARNWATH J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 15, 2007
Date of Release: March 21, 2007
COURT FILE NO.: 365/06
DATE: 20070315
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
LANE, CARNWATH AND SWINTON JJ.
B E T W E E N:
FAIZA OMAR
Appellant
- and -
ONTARIO (DIRECTOR, DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM)
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 15, 2007
Date of Release: March 21, 2007