Randy Schroeder

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal finding him ineligible for disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal test and made no palpable and overriding error in its factual conclusions.

The court also held that the appellant's human rights and Charter claims were not properly before it, and that his request for retroactive benefits to 2003 was precluded because earlier applications had been abandoned.

On a preliminary issue in an appeal, the Divisional Court ruled that the Social Benefits Tribunal was not properly a party to the proceeding.

The court noted there was no separate relief claimed by the appellant that was not available against the Ministry, and no jurisdictional issue was raised.

No costs were awarded.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering it to pay $3,000 in statutory compensation to former tenants who had received a notice of termination for conversion of their mobile home site.

The tenants were subsequently evicted for non-payment of rent and owed over $3,300 in arrears.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's findings that the compensation obligation survived the eviction and that the claim was not statute-barred.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on the basis that the Board erred in law by failing to set off the rent arrears against the compensation owed, resulting in no net compensation payable to the tenants.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the receipt of services on the basis of disability against the Landlord and Tenant Board and one of its members.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

Applying the doctrine of judicial immunity, the Tribunal found that the allegations concerned rulings made by members of the Board in the exercise of their adjudicative functions.

As such, the decisions fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that an adjudicator at the Landlord and Tenant Board failed to accommodate her hearing loss during a proceeding.

The respondents argued that the application was barred by the doctrine of adjudicative immunity.

The Tribunal found that the adjudicator's actions, including the management of the proceeding and decisions regarding cross-examination, fell within his adjudicative function.

As such, the adjudicator and the institutional respondents were protected by adjudicative immunity, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who has a hearing impairment, alleged discrimination by a Vice-chair of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) for failing to accommodate his needs during a hearing.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal considered whether to add the LTB as a respondent.

Despite the respondents' argument that the LTB is not a legal entity capable of being sued, the Tribunal found that the LTB falls within the definition of a 'person' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion under section 36(5) of the Code to add the LTB as a respondent, noting that the LTB is the appropriate entity to respond to allegations regarding its accommodation policies.

Various groups of employees sought standing to participate in a hearing regarding the revocation or enforcement of a Review Officer's order directing the employer and union to conclude a pay equity plan.

Prior to the hearing, the employer and union reached a settlement on the pay equity plan.

The Tribunal held that the employee groups did not have standing to seek enforcement of the order or to participate in the revocation hearing independently of their bargaining agent.

As the employee groups and the Pay Equity Office were not parties to the revocation hearing, the settlement between the employer and union was binding and concluded the proceedings.

The request for compensation by the employee groups was denied.