1406-07426 (Re), 2015 ONSBT 4885 (CanLII)
I can't access any legal advice or support. I've dealt with the OHRC, the Ontario Human Rights Legal Support Centre, Legal Aid, various lawyers through the Lawyer Referral Service and legal clinics funded through the Attorney General. The answer from all: #represent yourself.
Well that's really disappointing. The work involved is staggering for a non-lawyer. In this post I simply extracted the important points related to my claim that arose in one Decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal. It will take me at least 2 hours to properly assimilate these rough notes.
The addition of a Code issue does not broaden the jurisdiction of the SBT. The reasoning of the SBT on this matter can be found in such decisions as SBT 0805-04330 and 0805-04438.
The Appellant did not suggest, demonstrate or establish a connection between the alleged discrimination and the prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code. In an appeal to this Tribunal, the Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating the Administrator’s decision is wrong.
[16] The Appellant argued at this hearing that the Tribunal ought to consider several external documents in making its decision. These included the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). He requested that the Tribunal apply and enforce the articles of these documents. There are two primary reasons that I have not done so. The first is that the Tribunal has no authority to enforce these documents as they are international treaties which are properly pursued in other venues (such as the International Court of Justice). Second, the Tribunal is more directly bound by the Ontario Works Act which creates and empowers it and matters of human rights in Ontario are more appropriately and properly addressed under the Human Rights Code. That is, the Tribunal is not authorized to make any orders under the documents cited by the Appellant and in any event is more specifically bound and governed by other legislation.
Of course, government benefits or services cannot be fully customized. As a practical matter, general solutions will often have to be adopted, solutions which inevitably may not respond perfectly to the needs of every individual. This is particularly true in the context of large-scale compensation systems, such as the workers’ compensation scheme under consideration. Such systems often need to classify various injuries and illnesses based on available medical evidence and use the resulting classifications to process the claims made by beneficiaries. This approach is necessary, both for reasons of administrative efficiency and to ensure fairness in processing large numbers of claims. In addition, the beneficiaries themselves benefit from the reduced transaction costs and speed achieved through such techniques, and without which large-scale compensation might well be impossible.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2003/2003scc54/2003scc54.html
[104] …It is not the role of the Tribunal, in applying the Code, to substitute its opinion for the program designers in making the estimations necessary to establish a complex benefit scheme of this nature. Therefore, only when the amount is significantly disproportionate to the amount of the additional costs as compared with other disabilities should there be a finding of discrimination.
[
105] Supreme Court of Canada case law supports this conclusion. At para. 82 of Martin, supra, the Supreme Court held that the state should “benefit from a certain margin of appreciation” in designing large-scale benefit programs. In Gosselin, supra, it stated as follows, at para. 55:Crafting a social assistance plan to meet the needs of young adults is a complex problem, for which there is no perfect solution.
At para. 56, it emphasized:
The legislator is entitled to proceed on informed general assumptions without running afoul of s. 15.
[30] I find on a balance of probabilities that there is insufficient evidence available in this instance to find in his favour or to demonstrate a violation of the Human Rights Code. He comprehensively expressed his perception of unfair treatment, but did not relate this to any differential treatment or prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code and did not illustrate any remedy which the Tribunal could provide to him.
[32] The appellant’s circumstances, as all recipients of social assistance, are unique to him. This is why individual assessment of the additional coverage sought is performed. This ensures the respondent does not impose a blanket restriction on the basis of some prohibited ground. He has not refused to provide the information necessary to assess his eligibility, and again this information is requested of all recipients such that it does not appear to show any differential treatment.
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsbt/doc/2015/2015onsbt4885/2015onsbt4885.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAOImh1bWFuIHJpZ2h0cyIAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=2
Well that's really disappointing. The work involved is staggering for a non-lawyer. In this post I simply extracted the important points related to my claim that arose in one Decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal. It will take me at least 2 hours to properly assimilate these rough notes.
The addition of a Code issue does not broaden the jurisdiction of the SBT. The reasoning of the SBT on this matter can be found in such decisions as SBT 0805-04330 and 0805-04438.
The Appellant did not suggest, demonstrate or establish a connection between the alleged discrimination and the prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code. In an appeal to this Tribunal, the Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating the Administrator’s decision is wrong.
[16] The Appellant argued at this hearing that the Tribunal ought to consider several external documents in making its decision. These included the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). He requested that the Tribunal apply and enforce the articles of these documents. There are two primary reasons that I have not done so. The first is that the Tribunal has no authority to enforce these documents as they are international treaties which are properly pursued in other venues (such as the International Court of Justice). Second, the Tribunal is more directly bound by the Ontario Works Act which creates and empowers it and matters of human rights in Ontario are more appropriately and properly addressed under the Human Rights Code. That is, the Tribunal is not authorized to make any orders under the documents cited by the Appellant and in any event is more specifically bound and governed by other legislation.
Of course, government benefits or services cannot be fully customized. As a practical matter, general solutions will often have to be adopted, solutions which inevitably may not respond perfectly to the needs of every individual. This is particularly true in the context of large-scale compensation systems, such as the workers’ compensation scheme under consideration. Such systems often need to classify various injuries and illnesses based on available medical evidence and use the resulting classifications to process the claims made by beneficiaries. This approach is necessary, both for reasons of administrative efficiency and to ensure fairness in processing large numbers of claims. In addition, the beneficiaries themselves benefit from the reduced transaction costs and speed achieved through such techniques, and without which large-scale compensation might well be impossible.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2003/2003scc54/2003scc54.html
[104] …It is not the role of the Tribunal, in applying the Code, to substitute its opinion for the program designers in making the estimations necessary to establish a complex benefit scheme of this nature. Therefore, only when the amount is significantly disproportionate to the amount of the additional costs as compared with other disabilities should there be a finding of discrimination.
[
105] Supreme Court of Canada case law supports this conclusion. At para. 82 of Martin, supra, the Supreme Court held that the state should “benefit from a certain margin of appreciation” in designing large-scale benefit programs. In Gosselin, supra, it stated as follows, at para. 55:Crafting a social assistance plan to meet the needs of young adults is a complex problem, for which there is no perfect solution.
At para. 56, it emphasized:
The legislator is entitled to proceed on informed general assumptions without running afoul of s. 15.
[30] I find on a balance of probabilities that there is insufficient evidence available in this instance to find in his favour or to demonstrate a violation of the Human Rights Code. He comprehensively expressed his perception of unfair treatment, but did not relate this to any differential treatment or prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code and did not illustrate any remedy which the Tribunal could provide to him.
[32] The appellant’s circumstances, as all recipients of social assistance, are unique to him. This is why individual assessment of the additional coverage sought is performed. This ensures the respondent does not impose a blanket restriction on the basis of some prohibited ground. He has not refused to provide the information necessary to assess his eligibility, and again this information is requested of all recipients such that it does not appear to show any differential treatment.
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsbt/doc/2015/2015onsbt4885/2015onsbt4885.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAOImh1bWFuIHJpZ2h0cyIAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=2
Comments
Post a Comment