Past Legal Challenges
This is a list of our past challenges:
Ostique v. The Administrator of Ontario Works for the City of Toronto
This case involves an appeal from a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT), which ordered a sole-support mother to cash-out the Registered Education Savings Plan for her daughter, in order to get income support from Ontario Works.
ISAC brought the unfairness of this issue to the attention of the government, the media and the public on October 7, 2004, by holding a press conference. On December 15, 2004, the government did change the regulations and rules around RESPs, and families who need to apply for OW/ODSP no longer have to cash out RESPs in order to qualify.
However, the new RESP rule did not benefit the mother and daughter in this case, because the SBT decision was handed down in November 2003 - before the government made the changes. The changes did not apply to decisions made before December 15, 2004, and so did not apply to this case.
A settlement was reached prior to this case being heard at Ontario Divisional Court.
ISAC worked on this case with counsel from the West Scarborough Community Legal Clinic.
Wayne Locke v. Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services)
This case involves a human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which arose due to an ODSP Regulation that characterized Non-Economic Loss (NEL) awards under workers’ compensation legislation as being income and assets for social assistance purposes.
Under workers’ compensation legislation, a NEL award is granted where a worker suffers a permanent impairment, that is, a physical, functional or psychological loss related to a workplace injury. Because NEL awards were classified as income and assets, injured workers would be required to spend their NEL awards in order to remain eligible for ODSP, or see their ODSP suspended while they used the money from the NEL to meet their basic needs.
This case was brought forward by an injured worker who had to rely on ODSP income support while he waited for a decision in his workers’ compensation appeal. The worker was eventually awarded a NEL, and was faced with the prospect of disposing of it or having his ODSP suspended. In order to keep on-going ODSP benefits for his family, he disposed of his NEL. Afterwards, he filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, claiming that the ODSP Act treated injured workers differently than other people with disabilities because it treated NEL awards differently than other awards. The ODSP Act treated NEL awards like income and assets, but did not treat other awards in the same way. For instance, ODSP recipients could keep the whole amount of awards for pain and suffering arising from personal injury lawsuits, or for injuries arising from “tainted blood”, and maintain their ODSP benefits, while injured workers had to dispose of their NEL awards in order to keep their ODSP benefits.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission advanced his complaint forward to hearing at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
As part of the reforms announced on December 15, 2004, the government changed the OW/ODSP regulations defining Non-Economic Loss awards as income and assets.
NEL awards are no longer treated as income, and injured workers who receive ODSP can keep their NEL awards (up to a maximum of $100,000). Injured workers who receive OW can also keep their NEL awards (up to a maximum of $25,000).
These changes did not benefit the Complainant in this case, because the change was not retroactive. A settlement was reached prior to a hearing at the Human Rights Tribunal.
The Attorney General of Canada v. Kelly Lesiuk
Kelly Lesiuk was denied Employment Insurance benefits because, as a mother working part-time, she was unable to accumulate the number of work hours necessary to qualify. Ms. Lesiuk has launched a Charter challenge to the EI eligibility requirements, arguing that they discriminate against women and mothers. ISAC has been granted intervener status before the court…
For more information click here
For a list of resources click here
Joanne Miller v. Attorney General of Canada
Joanne Miller is challenging Employment Insurance rules that discriminate against women, parents and people with disabilities by reducing the regular benefit period for claimants who had previously received maternity, parental or disability benefits...
For more information click here
For a list of resources click here
VJ et al v. Attorney General of Ontario
Since 1993, social assistance programs in Ontario have discriminated against sponsored immigrants in need of financial assistance by automatically deducting a minimum of $100/month from their benefits. ISAC is representing three individuals in a class action Charter challenge to these reductions…
This case has been resolved.
On December 15, 2004, the government changed the OW and ODSP rules that required the automatic deductions from the welfare benefits of sponsored immigrants (for more details, refer to the section "Liberals make changes to OW/ODSP rules".
For more information click here
The Inquest into the Death of Kimberly Rogers
In August 2001, Kimberly Rogers died in her Sudbury apartment while under house arrest for welfare fraud. She was eight months pregnant. The inquest into her death began on October 15, 2002. The Coroner's jury released its recommendations on December 19...
For more information click here
For a list of resources click here
|
