Divisional Court declares ODSP Director breached public duty by failing to reinstate benefits, but denies mandamus for arrears.
The applicant, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, had his Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits suspended and later cancelled by the Director for failing to provide requested information.
The Social Benefits Tribunal rescinded both decisions, finding the Director failed to accommodate the applicant's disability.
When the Director failed to reinstate the benefits, the applicant sought an order of mandamus.
The Divisional Court granted declarations that the Director breached his public duty by failing to reinstate the benefits, but declined to issue mandamus for the payment of arrears, finding that retroactive payments were within the Director's discretion and that the applicant had an alternative remedy through a civil action.
ORB decision overturned and absolute discharge granted where finding of significant threat was unreasonable.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which found he posed a significant threat to public safety and denied him an absolute discharge.
The hospital and treatment team supported an absolute discharge, noting that while the appellant suffered from schizophrenia, he was not violent and could be managed under the civil mental health system.
The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable, as it relied on speculative correlations between drug use, mental illness symptoms, and risk to the public, while ignoring the unique circumstances of the index offence and the appellant's lack of violent history.
The appeal was allowed and an absolute discharge was substituted.
Coroners Act provision making inquests discretionary for involuntary psychiatric patients does not violate Human Rights Code.
The complainants, family members of deceased involuntary psychiatric patients, alleged that s. 10 of the Coroners Act discriminated against them on the basis of mental disability by making inquests discretionary for involuntary patients but mandatory for inmates in penal institutions.
The Human Rights Tribunal found discrimination and ordered inquests and damages.
On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while a coroner's inquest is a 'service' under s. 1 of the Human Rights Code, the differential treatment under the Coroners Act does not amount to discrimination.
The distinction is based on the different vulnerable circumstances and levels of public oversight in penal institutions versus psychiatric facilities, not on disability.
The appeal was allowed and the complaints were dismissed.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board dismissed; Board did not err in refusing adjournment request.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the Board erred in refusing his request for an adjournment after the hospital's position regarding his transfer shifted.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board has discretion to conduct its own proceedings and did not err in law in refusing the adjournment.
However, the Court urged that necessary testing for the appellant's transfer be completed at the earliest practicable opportunity.
Leave to appeal costs award dismissed due to inordinate and unexplained delay.
The plaintiff applied for leave to appeal a costs award of $3,000 made against him by Pitt J. The application was filed six months after the order, well beyond the seven-day limit prescribed by Rule 62.02.
The Divisional Court refused to extend the time due to the inordinate and unexplained delay.
The court also noted there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the original costs award and dismissed the application for leave to appeal, awarding $2,000 in costs to the respondent.
