Other Tribunals - ONSCDC

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the denial of his application for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant had continuous impairments, they were not substantial and did not substantially restrict his activities of daily living.

The Divisional Court applied the correctness standard of review and found no error of law in the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the cancellation of her Ontario Works benefits and an overpayment assessment of over $95,000.

The administrator had determined she was not living as a single person.

After the Tribunal denied her appeal and first reconsideration request, the appellant obtained her Ontario Works file and submitted new, highly material evidence in a second reconsideration request.

The Tribunal denied the second request using boilerplate reasons identical to the first denial.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by failing to provide adequate reasons addressing the new evidence, which was material to the appellant's credibility and living situation.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a de novo hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the denial of his application for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.

The Divisional Court found that while the Tribunal correctly assessed the appellant's physical impairments, it erred in law by disregarding and failing to appreciate relevant evidence regarding his long-standing mental health impairments.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was returned to the Tribunal for a re-hearing before a different member.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) removed 229 dogs from the applicants' commercial dog sledding business and issued a statement of account for over $1.1 million for their care.

The Animal Care Review Board varied the account to approximately $505,000, disallowing transportation and veterinary costs and reducing boarding costs.

Both the applicants and the CAWI brought applications for judicial review of the Board's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed both applications, finding that the Board's allocation of the initial evidentiary burden to the CAWI, its refusal to admit fresh evidence, and its determinations regarding the various costs were all reasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal, which upheld the Director's refusal to deduct a CRA tax payment from her monthly employment earnings for ODSP purposes.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its treatment of the payment and breached procedural fairness by not allowing her former spouse to represent her while she was at work.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's decision to consider the tax payment during a later review of business earnings.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, noting the appellant had ample notice of the hearing and her former spouse was permitted to assist her.

The applicants sought judicial review of two decisions by the Animal Care Review Board regarding their sled dog business.

The Board had confirmed orders requiring the applicants to improve living conditions for their dogs, including lengthening tethers and remediating doghouses.

When the applicants failed to comply, animal welfare inspectors removed approximately 230 dogs.

The Board subsequently ordered that most of the dogs not be returned until the applicants complied with the orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications for judicial review, finding the Board's interpretation of the tethering requirements reasonable and concluding that the removal and retention of the dogs were justified due to the applicants' ongoing non-compliance with the minimum standards of care.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) applied for judicial review of a Coroner's preliminary ruling in an inquest into a fatal helicopter crash.

The Coroner had ordered the disclosure of certain aggregate and specific information about witness statements obtained during the TSB's investigation.

The TSB argued this information was protected by the statutory privilege in s. 30 of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act (CTSA).

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding the Coroner's decision unreasonable as it conflicted with the broad statutory privilege and the mandatory procedure for disclosure under s. 30(5) of the CTSA.

The Registrar appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision directing the Registrar not to revoke the respondent's funeral preplanner licence.

The respondent had misused client funds, but the LAT found she did not personally benefit and her past conduct did not give reason to believe she would fail to act with honesty and integrity in the future.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LAT made no reviewable errors in its application of section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, and properly considered the respondent's motivations.

A case management endorsement scheduling an appeal from a decision of the Ontario College of Teachers.

The appeal concerns a discipline panel's decision to reject a joint submission on penalty and impose a higher penalty.

The College does not oppose the appeal.

The court provided procedural directions for a ZOOM videoconference hearing, including the filing of electronic materials and costs submissions.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal that found it breached capacity limits under the Liquor Licence Act and imposed a 15-day licence suspension.

The appellant conceded its patio was overcrowded but argued the Tribunal erred in law regarding the extent of the breach, reasons, fairness, and sanction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable, supported by reasons, and the 15-day suspension appropriate given previous similar infractions.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal denying him Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits.

The Tribunal had found that the appellant's impairments were not substantial at the time of the Director's decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by unreasonably disregarding a psychiatric report prepared after the Director's decision, which was admissible under s. 64(1) of O. Reg. 222/98.

The Tribunal also misapprehended medical imaging evidence regarding the appellant's physical condition and failed to consider medical opinions relating to his depression.

The matter was remitted to a new panel for a rehearing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal affirming the termination of his ODSP benefits.

His benefits were terminated because he was absent from Ontario for more than 30 days after travelling to Mexico and missing his return flight due to illness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's decision and noting the appellant conceded he was ineligible for ODSP benefits during the relevant period because he was receiving OSAP.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal finding she was not a 'person with a disability' under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred by giving little weight to unverified medical conditions when assessing the substantiality of her verified impairments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness and that the Tribunal correctly applied the law by considering the whole person without improperly relying on unverified impairments.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal, arguing that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to appreciate the medical evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal considered all evidence, correctly applied s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, and properly determined that the appellant did not have a substantial impairment.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding Ontario Disability Support Program benefits, arguing a conflict between sections 47(7) and 64(1)(a) of O. Reg. 222/98 concerning new medical evidence.

The Divisional Court found no conflict, holding that the Tribunal may only consider new medical evidence relating to the appellant's condition at the effective date of the Director's decision.

The appeal was allowed on consent and referred back to a differently constituted Tribunal for a rehearing, with no costs awarded.

The appellant applied for compensation after a child under 12 injured another child with a slingshot.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board dismissed the claim, finding no crime of violence occurred because the child lacked criminal intent.

On appeal, the appellant argued that s. 16(2) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act deemed the child to have intent, overriding s. 13 of the Criminal Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 13 creates a blanket prohibition against criminal accountability for children under 12, which s. 16(2) does not displace.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the Director's finding that she was not a 'person with a disability' under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly interpret and apply all three subparagraphs of section 4(1) of the Act.

The court held that the Tribunal improperly stopped its analysis after finding no 'substantial' impairment under subparagraph (a), without considering the impact of the impairment on activities of daily living under subparagraph (b).

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Social Benefits Tribunal decision denying him disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by overlooking medical evidence and his inability to function in the workplace.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal correctly interpreted the legislation, properly considered the medical evidence, and made credibility findings that supported its conclusion that the applicant did not meet the statutory definition of a person with a disability.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal denying her disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Tribunal found her impairments were not sufficiently verified.

The Divisional Court held the Tribunal erred in law by applying an overly strict standard for verification and by failing to consider the cumulative effect of her physical and mental impairments.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was declared eligible for income support.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Tribunal regarding his eligibility for disability support.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to make findings of fact on crucial medical evidence, including reports from the appellant's family doctor and a specialist confirming his long-term disabling conditions.

The appeal was allowed, the decision set aside, and the matter remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal for reconsideration.