Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

ODSP-OWA - Disclosure

. M.I. v. Administrator, Ontario Works Region of Peel

In M.I. v. Administrator, Ontario Works Region of Peel (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court granted an appeal (ordering a new SBT hearing) against a SBT welfare case that found a single-parent-eligible recipient was co-habiting with her husband, therefore assessing both a significant over-payment and a disentitlement. Appeals under the Ontario Works Act are limited to 'questions of law' [OWA s.36(1)].

Here the court makes a remarkably sensible argument for disclosure in the administrative context, especially in that of welfare (and ODSP) with it's "vulnerable population":

[33] The respondent submits the Tribunal was not required to consider the evidence on the second reconsideration request because the appellant failed to provide an adequate explanation for why those records could not have been produced with reasonable diligence for the initial hearing. The respondent emphasizes that the lease and other financial documents would have been available to her and states she ought to have requested the Ontario Works file “well in advance” of the Tribunal hearing.

[34] I find these submissions wholly unpersuasive for the following reasons:

(a) While I accept that the lease and other financial documents were available to the appellant earlier, I also take into account that she was self-represented at the hearing.

(b) The respondent, a public provider of last-resort income benefits to a vulnerable population, had these documents in its own file but did not disclose them to the Tribunal. The respondent only provided the Tribunal with the documents supporting its position, such as the Ministry of Transportation and CRA documents.

(c) The respondent did not disclose the appellant’s file to her. She had no ability to access the case worker notes without filing a freedom of information request.

(d) In any event, the Tribunal did not explain whether or why it was refusing to consider the additional evidence. Based on the reasons provided, there is no way to know whether the Tribunal member was even aware that additional evidence was filed on the second reconsideration request.