CITATION: Shu He Huang v. Ontario Disability Support Program, 2025 ONSC 1972
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 530/24
DATE: 20250331
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
D.L. Corbett, Shore and O’Brien JJ.
BETWEEN:
SHU HE HUANG
Ms Huang, self-represented
Applicant
- and -
ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PLAN
Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: March 27, 2025
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The Appellant, Ms Huang, appeared with a certified interpreter, whose assistance was appreciated by the court.
[2] This is an appeal of whether the Social Benefits Tribunal erred in dismissing the Appellant’s appeal on June 5, 2024.
[3] The Appellant was in receipt of ODSP. Part of her benefits included taxi rides to and from therapy. She used City Taxi. In March 2023, the Appellant advised the Ministry that she would no longer be using City Taxi.
[4] The Appellant submits that she did not use City Taxi in April 2023, but in April 2023 City Taxi sent an invoice to ODSP in the sum of $476. The invoice sent to the Ministry in April 2023, was, on its face, for an outstanding amount for previous months.
[5] On June 1, 2023, the Director decided to pay $476 to City Taxi on account of their invoice.
[6] In August 2023, the Appellant asked ODSP to investigate whether City Taxi cheated ODSP. They did not get back to her.
[7] The appellant then appealed the Director’s June 1, 2023 decision to pay City Taxi and the decision not to conduct an internal investigation. The appeal was heard by the Social Benefits Tribunal (“SBT”). On June 5, 2024, the appeal was dismissed.
[8] The SBT found that the appeal was moot because a decision from them would not resolve a live controversy between the parties and would not have a practical effect on their rights. The Tribunal found that no decision within its jurisdiction would have practical effects on the Appellant: she was not disadvantaged by the Director’s decision. The Appellant requested reconsideration, which was denied on August 21, 2024.
[9] During oral argument, the appellant was clear that she challenges the propriety of the impugned payment to City Taxi, and she believes that this factual issue will be material to her efforts to regain control of her own property: she advised that currently the Public Guardian and Trustee has that control. It is not the task of the Director of the ODSP, or the SBT, to decide factual disputes for use in other proceedings. The Appellant has no unadjudicated ODSP claim, and the SBT was correct in concluding that it had no jurisdiction as a consequence.
[10] At the conclusion of the hearing before us, the Appellant asked if she should be pursuing her concerns in the Superior Court. This court has insufficient information to provide definitive guidance to the Appellant (who is self-represented). However, we can take judicial notice of prior court proceedings involving the Appellant (2018 ONCA 1000), in which the Public Guardian and Trustee was acting as Litigation Guardian for the Appellant in connection with proceedings in the Superior Court. Any issue about the status of the Public Guardian and Trustee in respect to those proceedings, or the proceeds of settlement of those proceedings, would be matters to address at first instance in the Superior Court. However, we do not wish to be taken to say that the issue raised before us (taxi charges billed in April 2023) would have a material bearing on a current assessment of whether the Appellant needs a guardian of property.
[11] The appeal is dismissed. No costs are sought and so none are awarded.
____________________________ D.L. Corbett J
O’Brien J.
Shore J.
Released: March 31, 2025