is that legal.ca

• be in writing [Reg s.69(2)];
  
  
• be signed by the applicant/recipient;
  
  
• include the welfare ID number (the number on the Notice of Decision) (or, barring this, the recipient's date of birth);
  
  
• state the date that the decision was "made" (ie. the date of issuance of the Notice of Decision, NOT the date the Decision was effective [see Ch.9 "Administrator Decisions", s.2(f): "When Decisions are Made, Effective and Final"];
  
  
• state the date that the Notice of Decision was received;
  
  
• IF REQUIRED: a EXPRESS (not implicit) request for an extension of the time for requesting an internal review, and the reasons for the request (see "Timelines for Filing and Extensions", immediately below).

• the original decision,
  
  
• whether that decision is confirmed, set aside or varied,
  
  
• the reasons for the IR decision;
  
  
• the effective date of the IR decision.

Act s.27(1)
No appeal may be commenced unless an internal review has been requested.

Act s.28(1)
An applicant or recipient may appeal a decision of an administrator within the prescribed period after an internal review by filing a notice of appeal that shall include reasons for requesting the appeal.

Note:
There is no specific mention of how service of a Notice of Tribunal Decision is to be made in the OW Act or General Regulation. However the Statutory Powers Procedures Act [SPPA s.18] addresses this topic in detail, even to the extent of setting out a mail delay rule that conflicts with OW Act s.68 ("notice ... deemed to be received on the third day following the date of mailing"). By virtue of SPPA s.32 (conflict resolution), s.18 SPPA prevails, and the SPPA s.18 rules are set out here.

Note:
The Tribunal may make s.25.1 SPPA rules regarding method and effective date of service of decisions as long as the method used generates a "proof of receipt" [SPPA s.18(1)(4)] and are not in conflict with the above rules [SPPA s.25.1(3)]. However this jurisdiction has not yet been exercised by the Tribunal.

• the first day does not count, but the last day does;
  
  
• weekend days and holidays do not count.

• Deny the appeal:
  
  Deny the appeal, which has the effect of confirming the administrator's original decision;
  
  
• Grant the appeal IN FULL:
  
  Which has the effect of reversing the administrator's original decision, in which case the original Notice of Decision can be disregarded and eligibility re-instated accordingly;
  
  
• Grant the appeal IN PART:
  
  Same as above, except the original decision will be modified as per the terms set out in the Tribunal's Decision;
  
  
• Refer Back with Directions
  
  "Refer the matter back to the administrator for reconsideration in accordance with any directions the Tribunal considers proper".
  
  This is the least-used Tribunal remedial authority. It typically arises were the Tribunal finds that the administrator has somehow erred in law or fact-finding and because of that never moved on to the next step required for deciding the case. Sometimes the Tribunal will just do this next step themselves based on the evidence before it, but on others it will 'send it back' (with directions) to the administrator to do. It will tend to 'send it back' when the next required step is one calling for the exercise of discretion by the administrator.

s.67(1) Act
The Tribunal shall not make a decision in an appeal under this Act that the administrator would not have authority to make.

• Constitutional Validity
  
  The SBT cannot inquire into or decide the constitutional validity of an Act or Regulation [Act s.67(2)(a)]. This prohibits the Tribunal from hearing issues raised under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms such as equality rights claims, and as well challenges to legislation based on federal division of powers (eg. arguing that a provincial law is properly a federal power and as such illegal). (See "Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms", below). Note that most Charter discrimination issues can be argued under the Ontario Human Rights Code (see s.8, below).
  
  
• Ultra Vires Regulations
  
  The Tribunal cannot declare regulations to be "ultra vires" [Act s.67(2)(b) - let me explain.
  
  Remember from Ch.1 "Overview" the distinction between Acts and Regulations - especially how Regulations tend to spell out more specific, detailed rules to realize the larger objectives of the legislation. In OW law, s.74 of the Act lists the authority that cabinet has to make regulations under the Ontario Works Act. This authority has been used in making several regulations, most particularly the main OW General Regulation 134/98, which is often referenced in this program.
  
  However if someone thinks that a regulation makes rules that are NOT authorized under the main ("parent") legislation, then the regulation (or more often part of it) can be challenged and perhaps even struck down in court as being "ultra vires" (beyond jurisdiction).
  
  The Tribunal CANNOT rule on ultra vires regulations and such cases must be taken directly to court. The case of Re Merrick and Ontario (Director, VRS) 49 OR (2d) 675 (HC, 1985) is an example of an "ultra vires" (and improper delegation of authority) argument in an older Ontario social assistance context (vocational rehab services). The case combined several appeal and judicial review proceedings at once.