Rebecca Givens

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

The appellant argued the Tribunal ignored evidence, applied the wrong legal test, and provided insufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal did not fundamentally misapprehend the evidence, correctly applied the test for a 'person with a disability' as set out in Crane, and provided adequate reasons to permit appellate review.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision that overturned a Social Benefits Tribunal ruling regarding her disability support claim.

The Divisional Court had characterized the Tribunal's failure to accept certain medical evidence as an error of law.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal had properly considered and weighed all the evidence, including medical reports and the appellant's testimony, and that the Divisional Court had improperly interfered with the Tribunal's factual findings.

The appellant, a person with a disability who shares joint custody of her three children on an alternating week basis, appealed a decision reducing the basic needs component of her income support under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Tribunal had awarded her 100 per cent of the shelter allowance but only 50 per cent of the basic needs allowance, reflecting the shared custody arrangement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjust the basic needs allowance to reflect the reality of joint custody, as the appellant did not have primary care and control of the children more than 50 per cent of the time.

The appellant's income assistance was terminated after she failed to provide required information regarding changes in her circumstances, as required by the Ontario Works Act and its regulations.

She appealed, arguing that her non-compliance should only result in the termination of her own assistance, not that of her dependant daughter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the failure to provide core financial information precludes the administrator from calculating assistance, thereby rendering the dependant's exemption inapplicable.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the Director's denial of his application for income support as a disabled person under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by disregarding and misapprehending medical evidence, specifically by discounting reports from one family physician in favour of another.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal carefully reviewed the medical evidence, noted discrepancies with the appellant's testimony, and made no palpable or overriding error of fact.

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

The Social Benefits Tribunal had found her credible but concluded she was not a person with a disability because she could cope on a day-to-day basis.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal failed to fulfill its statutory duty to give adequate reasons and asked the wrong legal question.

The Court emphasized that social welfare legislation should be interpreted broadly and resolved ambiguities in the claimant's favour.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal with a direction that the appellant is a person with a disability.

The appellant province appealed a judgment concerning the designation of First Nations bands as delivery agents under the Ontario Works Act.

The Court of Appeal resolved the dispute narrowly by declaring that, in light of the 1965 Welfare Agreement, the minister's powers under s. 38 had to be exercised with the consent of the band.

The court set aside the judgment below, established a process by which bands could indicate non-consent and obtain immediate revocation of designation, and left existing designations temporarily in place pending that choice.

The court expressly declined to determine the broader constitutional issues addressed below.