) ) KELLY LYNN MCNULTY Appellant – v. –, 2013 ONSC 7046

CITATION : McNulty v. City of Toronto, 2013 ONSC 7046 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 319/13 DATE: 20131113 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT THEN R.S.J., SACHS AND MCEWEN JJ. BETWEEN: ) ) KELLY LYNN MCNULTY Appellant – and – SOCIAL BENEFITS TRIBUNAL: CITY OF TORONTO, EMPLOYMENT & SOCIAL SERVICES Respondents )) )) )) )) ))) In Person Matthew L. J.

Cornett , for the Respondent, City of Toronto ) ) ) HEARD at Toronto: November 13, 2013 SACHS J. (orally) [ 1 ] This is an appeal form a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) in which the Tribunal declined to hear the appellant’s appeal relating to the City of Toronto’s (“the City”) failure to provide her with an employment placement. [ 2 ] On this appeal the City relies on s. 26(2) 1 of the Ontario Works Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 25 (“the Act”) as the basis for its decision. [ 3 ]

Section 3 of the Act provides that there are two forms of assistance under the Act – employment assistance and basic financial assistance. [ 4 ]

Section 26 deals with decisions that may be appealed. It reads as follows: 26.1 Any decision of an administrator affecting eligibility for or the amount of basic financial assistance other than a decision referred to in subsection (2), may be appealed to the Tribunal. Exceptions

(2) No appeal lies to the Tribunal with respect to the following matters: 1. A decision with respect to employment assistance that does not affect eligibility for or the amount of income assistance or a mandatory benefit. 2. A decision respecting discretionary benefits. [ 5 ] It is clear that the decision in question is an employment assistance decision as opposed to a basic financial assistance decision. It is also clear that employment placement has not been designated by regulation as either a mandatory or a discretionary benefit.

[ 6 ] Section 26(1) sets out the type of decisions that are appealable under the Act – that is, decisions that affect eligibility for or the amount of basic financial assistance as opposed to decisions that affect eligibility for employment assistance. Read in context, the purpose of s.26(2) 1 is to recognize that there are certain employment assistance decisions that could affect a recipient’s eligibility for or amount of basic financial assistance.

This occurs, for example, when a decision is made to render a person ineligible for income assistance because he or she has failed to satisfy the participation requirements of an employment assistance program, such as basic education or job specific skills training. It did not occur when the appellant was not given an opportunity to participate in the employment placement program.

There is no suggestion that that decision affected the appellant’s eligibility for or the amount of her income assistance. [ 7 ] The appellant makes the argument that if she had been placed with an employer, her need for income assistance may have been reduced. First, this argument involves speculation. Second, this argument, if accepted, would effectively render the restrictive nature of 26(2) meaningless. Any issue relating to employment assistance that could lead to employment would be appealable to the Tribunal. Read together, the provisions of the Act make it clear that such an

interpretation was not intended by the Legislature. [ 8 ] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. COSTS THEN R.S.J. [ 9 ] I have endorsed the Appeal Book as follows, “This appeal is dismissed for oral reasons delivered on behalf of the Court by Sachs J. The respondent does not seek costs and none are awarded.” SACHS J. THEN R.S.J. MCEWEN J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 13, 2013 Date of Release: November 19, 2013 CITATION : McNulty v. City of Toronto, 2013 ONSC 7046 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 319/13 DATE: 20131113 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT THEN R.S.J., SACHS AND MCEWEN JJ. BETWEEN:

KELLY LYNN MCNULTY Appellant – and – SOCIAL BENEFITS TRIBUNAL: CITY OF TORONTO, EMPLOYMENT & SOCIAL SERVICES Respondents ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SACHS J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 13, 2013 Date of Release: November 19, 2013