Decisions, Decisions
There are some rulings on the issue that bear close scrutiny. I'll just list them for now and fill out my analysis later.
1. The adjudicator makes a dog's breakfast out of family law.
1111-09314 (Re), 2012 ONSBT 62 (CanLII)
2. The Judge ignores discrimination perpetrated against the child.
Kelly v. Prince Edward Island (Department of Community Services, Seniors and Labour), 2011 CanLII 3778 (PE HRC)
The motions judge did not misapprehend the factual scenario. Ms. Kelly submits that the two complaints are distinctive. However, they apparently have a lot in common. They originated as complaints about terms of welfare assistance. The Record of Decision which is the subject of the judicial review application treats them substantially as one. It refers to the first as a discrimination complaint based on her social assistance having been lowered because her child support was being counted as income; and to the second as a discrimination complaint “of a similar nature” but including the grounds of association, political belief and sexual orientation. The Chairperson of the Commission dismissed both complaints on the basis that they are not within the authority of a human rights tribunal to decide. The underlying decision of the Executive Director of the Commission referred to the second complaint as “another complaint with substantially similar allegations, but with grounds of association, source of income, sexual orientation and political belief,” and dealt with both complaints together. There is no evidence of any request having been made to the Commission for the Executive Director to separate the investigation or for the Commission Chairperson to separate the review of the Executive Director’s decision regarding the two complaints.
(Note the new Rules of Practice of the Ontario Social Benefits Tribunal: "If you plan to argue that the legislation or a regulation contravenes the Human Rights Code, you must file a Notice of Human Rights Code Claim (Form 4) with your appeal or at least 60 days before the hearing.")
3. Ontario (Disability Support Program) v. Ansell, 2011 ONCA 309
(iii) Characterizing child support as income unfairly discriminates against disabled children of separated parents
iv) Child support is not a listed exemption in the Regulation because no exemption is required
4. A ruling where the OW clawback law is simply enforced.
++++
5. An appalling case. A mother is denied welfare because she can't name the father.
1310-11005 (Re), 2014 ONSBT 2594 (CanLII)
[1] The Appellant is appealing the decision of the Administrator to terminate her public assistance on September 19, 2013 as she had failed to provide information regarding the paternity of her daughter and subsequently failed to seek alternate resources in the form of child support for her.
See also: 1309-09435 (Re), 2014 ONSBT 4269 (CanLII)
"Overall the Tribunal is satisfied that the Appellant did not fail to provide information; the Tribunal believes on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant has given all the information that is in her possession about the identity of the father of her child. Neither she nor her child should be penalized for the way the child was brought into the world."
This case is useful when considering the dual welfare obligations of entitlement to public assistance: One must "seek work" and "seek child support" to maintain eligibility.
7. 1303-02999 (Re), 2014 ONSBT 2010 (CanLII)
A case that highlights one aspect of the administrative burden on delivery agents who claw back child support payments.
8. 1207-09184R (Re), 2013 ONSBT 4034 (CanLII)
"Following a review of the legislation as well as the submissions (written and oral) of the Appellant and Respondent the Tribunal finds in favor of the Appellant in that there was ambiguity in the legislation at the time of the Director’s decision and that EI benefits should be considered as an extension of income from employment and therefore be deducted at a rate of 50% rather than 100%. The appeal is granted and income from EI should be considered at a rate of 50%, in accordance with s .38 of the Regulation."
9. 1308-08679 (Re), 2014 ONSBT 4959 (CanLII)
"The Appeal Court also found that characterizing child support payments as income would unfairly discriminate against disabled children of separated parents because children of an intact family would receive more funds than those whose parents are separated."
10. 1204-04108 (Re), 2012 ONSBT 284 (CanLII)
This is a case where a non-biological father cohabited with bastard children and their mother. There was no court order for child support. The child's mother was ordered to pay back 60K in welfare (every penny she received) for lying about the presence of "a father" in the home.
"[The mother] was advised that [the cohabitating man] could be added to the benefit unit as a spouse but that [the cohabitating man] did not want to be added because he was “afraid the kids would lose.”"
One would think that welfare wouldn't ask for every penny back, but asses the overpayment based on what the mother would have received with an extra adult as part of her benefit unit. That's why I bookmarked this ruling as one that is very punishing of the bastard children. It relies on attacking the credibility of the mother and the good will toward her children shown by her companion. Any person who is associated with a child support claim can used to victimize illegitimate kids on welfare.
1. The adjudicator makes a dog's breakfast out of family law.
1111-09314 (Re), 2012 ONSBT 62 (CanLII)
2. The Judge ignores discrimination perpetrated against the child.
Kelly v. Prince Edward Island (Department of Community Services, Seniors and Labour), 2011 CanLII 3778 (PE HRC)
The motions judge did not misapprehend the factual scenario. Ms. Kelly submits that the two complaints are distinctive. However, they apparently have a lot in common. They originated as complaints about terms of welfare assistance. The Record of Decision which is the subject of the judicial review application treats them substantially as one. It refers to the first as a discrimination complaint based on her social assistance having been lowered because her child support was being counted as income; and to the second as a discrimination complaint “of a similar nature” but including the grounds of association, political belief and sexual orientation. The Chairperson of the Commission dismissed both complaints on the basis that they are not within the authority of a human rights tribunal to decide. The underlying decision of the Executive Director of the Commission referred to the second complaint as “another complaint with substantially similar allegations, but with grounds of association, source of income, sexual orientation and political belief,” and dealt with both complaints together. There is no evidence of any request having been made to the Commission for the Executive Director to separate the investigation or for the Commission Chairperson to separate the review of the Executive Director’s decision regarding the two complaints.
(Note the new Rules of Practice of the Ontario Social Benefits Tribunal: "If you plan to argue that the legislation or a regulation contravenes the Human Rights Code, you must file a Notice of Human Rights Code Claim (Form 4) with your appeal or at least 60 days before the hearing.")
(iii) Characterizing child support as income unfairly discriminates against disabled children of separated parents
iv) Child support is not a listed exemption in the Regulation because no exemption is required
4. A ruling where the OW clawback law is simply enforced.
++++
5. An appalling case. A mother is denied welfare because she can't name the father.
1310-11005 (Re), 2014 ONSBT 2594 (CanLII)
[1] The Appellant is appealing the decision of the Administrator to terminate her public assistance on September 19, 2013 as she had failed to provide information regarding the paternity of her daughter and subsequently failed to seek alternate resources in the form of child support for her.
See also: 1309-09435 (Re), 2014 ONSBT 4269 (CanLII)
"Overall the Tribunal is satisfied that the Appellant did not fail to provide information; the Tribunal believes on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant has given all the information that is in her possession about the identity of the father of her child. Neither she nor her child should be penalized for the way the child was brought into the world."
In these cases the presenting officer and the Tribunal Member failed to reference The Children's Law Reform Act. One woman lost, the other woman won with the same issue. See the relevant section "conflicting presumptions" below. I actually called and spoke to the case presenting officer for these cases. That's 'community work'. Proud of it.
Conflicting presumptions
(3) Where circumstances exist that give rise to a presumption or presumptions of paternity by more than one father under subsection (1), no presumption shall be made as to paternity and no person is recognized in law to be the father. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 8 (3)
"It's usually not about paternity when [we present a case to the Social Benefits Tribunal}. It's about the client". STIGMA. DISCRIMINATION.— Karen (@mywindyroom) May 20, 2016
6. Messier v. Delage, supra, at pp. 416‑17 "to luxuriate in idleness at the expense of the other"Hey @WhigStandard. Is this profile on your website *really* Kelly Gaon? Seems kinda inappropriate somehow. https://t.co/0aP0e1Fcz7— Karen (@mywindyroom) May 20, 2016
This case is useful when considering the dual welfare obligations of entitlement to public assistance: One must "seek work" and "seek child support" to maintain eligibility.
7. 1303-02999 (Re), 2014 ONSBT 2010 (CanLII)
A case that highlights one aspect of the administrative burden on delivery agents who claw back child support payments.
8. 1207-09184R (Re), 2013 ONSBT 4034 (CanLII)
"Following a review of the legislation as well as the submissions (written and oral) of the Appellant and Respondent the Tribunal finds in favor of the Appellant in that there was ambiguity in the legislation at the time of the Director’s decision and that EI benefits should be considered as an extension of income from employment and therefore be deducted at a rate of 50% rather than 100%. The appeal is granted and income from EI should be considered at a rate of 50%, in accordance with s .38 of the Regulation."
9. 1308-08679 (Re), 2014 ONSBT 4959 (CanLII)
"The Appeal Court also found that characterizing child support payments as income would unfairly discriminate against disabled children of separated parents because children of an intact family would receive more funds than those whose parents are separated."
10. 1204-04108 (Re), 2012 ONSBT 284 (CanLII)
This is a case where a non-biological father cohabited with bastard children and their mother. There was no court order for child support. The child's mother was ordered to pay back 60K in welfare (every penny she received) for lying about the presence of "a father" in the home.
"[The mother] was advised that [the cohabitating man] could be added to the benefit unit as a spouse but that [the cohabitating man] did not want to be added because he was “afraid the kids would lose.”"
One would think that welfare wouldn't ask for every penny back, but asses the overpayment based on what the mother would have received with an extra adult as part of her benefit unit. That's why I bookmarked this ruling as one that is very punishing of the bastard children. It relies on attacking the credibility of the mother and the good will toward her children shown by her companion. Any person who is associated with a child support claim can used to victimize illegitimate kids on welfare.
Decisions, Decisions! See here: http://lizardlaws.blogspot.ca/2016/05/suppression-of-tribunal-decisions.html
ReplyDeleteAnd this complaint...
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to make a formal complaint concerning the failure of the Social Benefits Tribunal to publish its Decisions during this calendar year (the "Decision").
I am unaware of any government policy or legislation that mandated the suppression of SBTO rulings. Please advise me who took the Decision, what department they work in, and by who's authority the Decision was carried out.
I believe the Decision discriminates against a protected class of persons, namely people receiving public assistance.
Thank-you for your attention to my complaint,
Sincerely,
ME