CITATION: Azadeh v. Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program, 2015 ONSC 6982
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 237/14
DATE: 20151112
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
KRUZICK, SANDERSON AND SPROAT JJ.
BETWEEN:
JABER ALIPOUR AZADEH
Appellant
– and –
DIRECTOR OF THE ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM
Respondent
Vanessa Emery, for the Appellant
Michelle M. Schrieder, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: November 12, 2015
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SPROAT J. (ORALLY)
[1] I would like to thank counsel for their submissions, which were very helpful. Counsel agree that the appellant’s right of appeal is on a question of law and that the standard of review is correctness. Ms. Emery submits that despite the fact the Tribunal correctly stated the governing legal principles, the further reasons of the Tribunal reveal that it did not correctly apply the law. Despite the able submissions of Ms. Emery, we do not agree.
[2] We are in substantial agreement with the submissions set out in Ms. Schrieder’s factum at paras. 61, 62, 64 and 72. What follows paraphrases those submissions. In this case the Tribunal reviewed the evidence in some detail and explained why it found inconsistencies and exaggerated testimony and provided reasons as to why it reached its decision that the appellant did not have substantial impairment. The Tribunal was not required to refer to every piece of evidence before it. The appellant’s arguments are really about how the Tribunal weighed the evidence. That is not an error of law. It is not the role of this Court to reweigh the evidence to reach its own conclusion.
[3] We do not agree that the Tribunal made conclusions about the medical evidence that was speculative or not reasonably supported by the medical evidence. Again, in our opinion, the complaint by the appellant really relates to how the Tribunal weighed and considered the evidence. Again, it is not the role of this Court to weigh and reconsider the evidence nor should the Court reconsider the conclusions the Tribunal reached with respect to the sufficiency or adequacy of the evidence.
[4] We are satisfied that the Tribunal did consider what was referred to as the “new” medical evidence. It is not necessary that the Tribunal refer to every piece of the evidence before it. As such, the appeal is dismissed.
[5] Costs were not requested and no costs are awarded.
SPROAT J.
KRUZICK J.
SANDERSON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 12, 2015
Date of Release: November 17, 2015
CITATION: Azadeh v. Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program, 2015 ONSC 6982
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 237/14
DATE: 20151112
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
KRUZICK, SANDERSON AND SPROAT JJ.
BETWEEN:
JABER ALIPOUR AZADEH
Appellant
– and –
DIRECTOR OF THE ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SPROAT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 12, 2015
Date of Release: November 17, 2015