Other Tribunals - ONSCDC

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.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal refusing to reopen his appeal after his ODSP application was initially closed as incomplete.

The Disability Adjudication Unit subsequently accepted the application as complete but denied benefits on the merits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal properly refused to reopen the appeal as it was moot.

The Court also held it lacked jurisdiction to determine the appellant's eligibility for benefits, as there was no Tribunal decision on entitlement before it.

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.

Three ODSP recipients appealed the Social Benefits Tribunal's decision denying them medical travel benefits to attend a therapeutic aquafitness program for severe mental illness.

The Tribunal had found the program was not a 'medical treatment' and questioned why alternative funding or programs were not used.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, holding that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to apply a purposive interpretation to the ODSPA.

The Court found the medically prescribed, psychiatrist-supervised aquafitness program constituted 'medical treatment' and that the regulation does not require applicants to prove no alternative programs or funding sources exist.

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

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly consider a late medical report and by making adverse credibility findings without adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal properly admitted and weighed the medical report, and that it did not make an adverse credibility finding but rather appropriately weighed the appellant's subjective pain testimony against the objective medical evidence.

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

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its findings regarding his medication dosage for depression and misapplied the law by effectively requiring his impairment to be continuous rather than recurrent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's factual conclusions were supported by the appellant's own testimony and that it correctly applied the statutory definition of disability.

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

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by disregarding a new medical report from her family doctor and by distinguishing between 'ache' and 'pain'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal did not err in law in affording no weight to the medical report as it did not relate to the appellant's condition at the time of the Director's decision, and that the Tribunal's interpretation of the appellant's evidence regarding her symptoms was a matter of weighing evidence, not an error of law.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal finding that she was not a person with a disability under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's conclusion was supported by an evidentiary basis, making the issue at highest a question of mixed fact and law.

As appeals to the Divisional Court under the Act are restricted to questions of law, the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Social Benefits Tribunal decision denying him supplementary benefits for medical transportation and surgical supplies under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the Tribunal erred in law by failing to address the appellant's uncontradicted evidence that he had submitted the required form for medical transportation costs.

The matter was referred back to the Director to determine the amount of transportation benefits owed.

The appeal regarding surgical supplies was dismissed as no error of law was shown.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal finding the respondent to be a person with a disability.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal committed a reversible error by relying on social and external factors—such as the respondent's lack of education, her husband's unemployment, and her childcare responsibilities—rather than her medical impairments to conclude she was substantially restricted in her ability to function in a workplace.

The Court also found the Tribunal's reasons to be inadequate.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel for a new hearing.

The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal that reinstated the respondent's benefits.

The Director argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the respondent filed her appeal more than two years after the Director's decision, contrary to the one-year absolute limit in O. Reg. 222/98.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the regulation valid and holding that the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction by hearing the late appeal.

The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal's order was set aside.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board dismissing her claim for compensation for mental shock suffered after her home was destroyed by arson.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law by treating the appellant as a secondary victim and applying the wrong criteria to deny her claim.

The Court held that the appellant was a primary victim and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a differently constituted Board.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal regarding the administration and calculation of her entitlements under the Ontario Works Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that appeals under the Act are restricted to questions of law.

Because the appellant raised only administrative and factual complaints, the court found no error of law.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying her claim for compensation as a victim of a violent crime.

The appellant sought compensation for nervous shock after learning that her daughter had been sexually assaulted by her husband years earlier.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly applied the common law test for nervous shock, which requires the claimant to have seen or heard the event or its immediate aftermath, rather than simply being informed of it later.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the Director's finding that he was not a 'person with a disability' under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997.

The Tribunal found the appellant had a substantial impairment due to back pain but no substantial restriction in activities of daily living.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the standard of review was correctness for questions of law, the Tribunal did not apply an incorrect test, the evidentiary findings were open to the Tribunal, and the reasons were adequate.

The applicant school board sought judicial review of a decision by the Child and Family Services Review Board that quashed the expulsion of a student for off-school marijuana use.

The Tribunal had found insufficient evidence of a nexus between the student's off-school activities and the school climate.

The Divisional Court exercised its discretion to hear the moot application, determined the standard of review was reasonableness, and upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding it reasonable and correct in its interpretation of the Education Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of two 2004 decisions denying him disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

He had failed to appeal the decisions to the Social Benefits Tribunal within the statutory time limit.

In 2008, he reapplied with new medical evidence and was granted benefits, but sought to have the grant made retroactive to 2004.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the judicial review due to the applicant's five-year delay and his failure to pursue his statutory right of appeal.

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

He argued the Tribunal applied the wrong legal test for 'substantial impairment' and erred by failing to consider new medical reports submitted after the Director's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal applied the correct legal test and properly weighed the evidence.

The Court also held the Tribunal did not err in excluding the new medical reports, as they did not clearly relate to the appellant's condition at the effective date of the Director's decision as required by the regulations.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying her claim for nervous shock after witnessing her brother's death.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for questions of law is correctness.

The Court found that the Board applied the correct standard of proof and properly concluded that there was insufficient medical evidence to establish a recognizable psychiatric or psychosomatic condition.

The appeal was dismissed.