Court File and Parties
CITATION: Jensen v. Director of Ontario Disability Support Program, 2010 ONSC 1663
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 185/09
DATE: 20100317
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, FERRIER AND DAMBROT JJ.
BETWEEN:
KIRK JENSEN
Appellant
– and –
DIRECTOR OF THE ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM
Respondent
Anna Zachariah, for the Appellant
Michelle M. Schrieder, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: March 17, 2010
Oral Reasons for Judgment
DAMBROT J. (orally)
[1] The appellant appeals from a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) which upheld the decision of the Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program that the appellant was not a “person with a disability” under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997.
[2] In its decision the Tribunal found that the appellant had a substantial impairment due to back pain but it concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated a “substantial restriction” in one or more activities of daily living.
[3] The appellant argues that the Tribunal applied “wrong legal principles” in making its decision, ignored relevant evidence and drew unreasonable inferences. He also argues that the reasons of the Tribunal were inadequate.
[4] As a preliminary matter, we note that an appeal lies from a decision of the Tribunal only on a question of law. Although not addressed by the appellant, we find that the standard of review is correctness. We turn next to the three grounds of appeal.
[5] Although not argued orally before us, the appellant submitted, in its factum, that the Tribunal applied an incorrect test to the two steps in the determination of whether or not he was a person with a disability, namely: that he has a substantial physical or mental impairment expected to last one year or more verified by a qualified person; and that the direct and cumulative effect of the impairment results in a substantial restriction in his activities of daily living, again verified by a qualified person. We see no merit in this ground of appeal. There is nothing in the reasons of the Tribunal to support this submission.
[6] The second ground of appeal raised by the appellant does not raise an issue of law. In reality, the appellant is disputing the findings of fact made by the Tribunal. In our view, there is no basis for us to conclude that the Tribunal ignored, misapprehended or failed to appreciate relevant evidence. The Board is not required to refer to every item of evidence presented to it or explain its reasons for accepting or rejecting each piece of evidence, and its failure to do so does not lead to the conclusion that it ignored, misapprehended or failed to appreciate relevant evidence, and does not entitle us to intervene. Similarly, the weight to be given to items of evidence is exclusively a matter for the Board. The findings of fact made by the Tribunal were open to it on the evidence.
[7] With respect to the third ground of appeal, we are satisfied that the reasons of the Board are adequate to permit meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
JENNINGS J.
[8] I endorse the back of the Appeal Book, “This appeal is dismissed for oral reasons delivered today. No costs being demanded. None awarded.”
DAMBROT J.
JENNINGS J.
FERRIER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 17, 2010
Date of Release: March 25, 2010
CITATION: Jensen v. Director of Ontario Disability Support Program, 2010 ONSC 1663
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 185/09
DATE: 20100317
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, FERRIER AND DAMBROT JJ.
BETWEEN:
KIRK JENSEN
Appellant
– and –
DIRECTOR OF THE ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DAMBROT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 17, 2010
Date of Release: March 25, 2010