) ) TERRENCE O’NEILL Appellant – v. –, 2013 ONSC 491

CITATION : O’Neill v. Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program, 2013 ONSC 491 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 389/11 DATE: 20130121 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT ASTON, HERMAN AND RAY JJ. BETWEEN: ) ) TERRENCE O’NEILL Appellant – and – DIRECTOR OF THE ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM OF THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES Respondent )) )) )) )) )))) Claudia Serraino , for the Appellant Michelle M. Schrieder , for the Ministry of Community and Social Services ) ) ) HEARD at Toronto: January 21, 2013 aston j. (ORALLY) [ 1 ] Mr.

O’Neill appeals a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal dated April 28, 2011, finding that he was not a “person with a disability” within the meaning of s. 4 of the Ontario Disabilities Support Program Act , 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 25, Sched. B , and the subsequent decision of July 2011 upholding the original decision. [ 2 ] The matter comes by us by way of a statutory appeal under s. 31 of the Act which provides that any party to a hearing before the Tribunal may appeal the Tribunal’s decision to the Divisional Court on a question of law.

We are therefore limited in our jurisdiction to the consideration of the questions of law. [ 3 ] The appellant in this case has failed to identify any error of law. The appeal challenges the findings of fact, inferences drawn from the facts and the manner by which the Tribunal assessed and weighed the evidence. The appellant characterizes issues of fact or mixed fact and law as errors of law but we do not accept that characterization. [ 4 ] The Tribunal articulated the proper legal test and it properly applied that test. The Tribunal did not ignore the evidence of Dr.

Goodman on the limitations of the appellant’s ability to sit or stand. It considered that evidence in the context of what the appellant could do. It also took into consideration the appellant’s decision not to take stronger medication that had been recommended and the fact that his decision was without any supporting evidence to demonstrate that his decision was reasonable. [ 5 ] The Tribunal did not ignore material evidence, misapprehend the evidence or make findings unsupported by evidence. In particular, the inferences it drew were not speculative but were supported by evidence.

The Tribunal’s reasons were transparent and adequate. [ 6 ] I have endorsed the record on behalf of the panel: the appeal is dismissed for oral reasons given and recorded. No costs.

ASTON J. HERMAN J. RAY J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 21, 2013 Date of Release: January 23, 2013 CITATION : O’Neill v. Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program, 2013 ONSC 491 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 389/11 DATE: 20130121 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT ASTON, HERMAN AND RAY JJ. BETWEEN: TERRENCE O’NEILL Appellant – and – DIRECTOR OF THE ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM OF THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES Respondent ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ASTON J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 21, 2013 Date of Release: January 23, 2013