Chapter 4: SBT - Case Law

Key case establishing addiction as a disability

Tranchemontagne v Ontario (Director, Disability Support Program)

The case of Tranchemontagne stands for the principle that

section 5(2) of the ODSPA violates the HRC and is therefore not valid

Arguments in Tranchemontagne turned on whether the SBT

had the jurisdiction to consider the HRC

was required to consider the HRC

was the correct venue for a decision of addiction discrimination

Case that stands for the principle that there needs to be a consideration of the person when determining if there is a disability

Ontario v Gallier

The test/question established by Gallier

Not: would any person be impaired, but is THIS person impaired

The Gallier case helped develop ODSP law in that it created a

holistic approach to interpretation

Gray v Director of ON Disability Support Program: court found that

SBT did not give sufficient reasons for the finding of the lack of disability, an error of law

In the case of Gray, the court applied what previous case

Gallier

Ontario V Crane: issues

were the interpretation of “person with disability” and “substantial physical impairment”

Ontario v Crane: finding by ON CA

each element of the definition is separate and cannot be merged

applicants must establish all of impairment

Jennings v Minister of Social Services of ON: issue

overpayment

Jennings: divisional court decision

set aside the overpayment

the intake process was uniform and there was no willful failure to withhold information

Surdivall v Ontario: issue

discretionary power of SBT and SBT director in altering or forgiving a decision rendered for overpayment

Surdivall: decision by CA

director had the authority to forego recovery and SBT has same discretion as the director