Bean Counting

To date, both the City of Toronto and the Social Benefits Tribunal haven't decided how they are going to 'account' for outstanding 'overpayments' accrued through the soon-to-be-retired child support 'clawback' scheme (and this is just my opinion...). So ...I compile here a few representative texts that speak to 'clawbacks' as 'overpayments'.  It should be noted that there is almost no advantage to the delivery agents in pursuing overpayments (the Province pays them monthly for benefits they distribute, and the municipal share of social assistance costs will be zero in 2018). However, a robust collections program 'pays for the program' and admonishments from the Auditor General keep the collections program alive. We are thinking today about the 'write-off' of overpayments related to child support *past, present and future.

1. http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsbt/doc/2016/2016onsbt3083/2016onsbt3083.pdf

In this decision the Tribunal declines to comment on how a faulty practice of calculating overpayments will play out in the future. The Appellant's father is an accountant and gives good testimony.

[5]           Later in the hearing, the Appellant’s father conceded that the overpayment of $323.58 for the month of May 2015 was also correct. However, he took issue with the manner in which the Respondent presented the calculation of this amount on the Appellant’s ODSP Statement of Assistance for that month, and in its submissions. He was concerned that what he perceived to be an incorrect accounting might set a precedent which would negatively affect the Appellant’s monthly support, or result in assessed overpayments, in the months to come.

[6]           While the Tribunal acknowledges the Appellant’s position which questions the Director’s accounting practices, given that the consequences of those practices speak to only hypothetical future impact, which the Tribunal need not consider in order to render a decision in the current appeal, the Tribunal declines to consider this issue further.

[7]           The Appellant’s father also believed that the $100 work related benefit which his daughter received could not be “clawed back” in the manner undertaken by the Respondent because there was nothing in section 44(1) of O.Reg. 222/98 or the Ministry’s Policy Directive 5.3 to authorize such a clawback. It was his further belief, however, that for May 2015, the issue was moot, as the amount of the overpayment was correct notwithstanding the manner in which the Respondent represented the calculation of that amount.

[8]           The Tribunal is satisfied that this issue is addressed by sections 14 -16 of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act(“the Act”), and O.Reg. 222/98, section 51. In summary, sections 14-16 stipulate that any amount provided in excess of the amount to which the recipient was entitled is an overpayment, and that any such overpayment may be recovered by deducting it from the recipient’s income support in the manner and amount prescribed by the Act and Regulations. The Tribunal is satisfied that the $100 work related benefit, when paid to a recipient who was not entitled to the benefit, is recoverable as an overpayment pursuant to the Act and Regulations.