3 total
Human rights application dismissed; deducting early CPP benefits from ODSP entitlements is not age discrimination.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination because his early Canada Pension Plan (CPP) benefits were deducted from his Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) income support.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application disclosed a prima facie case of discrimination.
The Tribunal found that the deduction of CPP benefits from ODSP entitlements was based on the applicant's income, not his age.
As the alleged disadvantage was not based on a Code-protected ground, the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and the application was dismissed.
Leave to amend a s. 7 Charter claim regarding disability benefit procedures expanded to include broader procedural unfairness.
The appellants commenced a proposed class action alleging that the procedures used to process claims for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits were inefficient and procedurally unfair, claiming negligence and breaches of ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter.
The motion judge struck the statement of claim but granted leave to amend the s. 7 claim solely regarding the failure to give reasons for denying benefits.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the negligence and s. 15 claims, but expanded the leave to amend the s. 7 claim to include other potential procedural fairness deficiencies beyond just the failure to give reasons.
Interim stay granted preventing termination of pharmacy's billing agreement pending judicial review.
The applicants, a pharmacist and his patients, brought a motion for an interim stay of the Executive Officer's decision to terminate the pharmacy's Health Network Subscription Agreement.
The Executive Officer purported to terminate the agreement without cause under the contract, despite statutory provisions governing suspension for cause.
The court found a serious issue to be tried regarding whether the statutory framework displaced the contractual right to terminate.
Finding that the pharmacy would suffer irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured the patients' need for uninterrupted service, the court granted the interim stay, holding that the Proceedings Against the Crown Act did not preclude enjoining a Crown servant from exceeding statutory authority.
