[ { "case_id": "2020onsbt1771", "citation": "2020 ONSBT 1771 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2020-08-19", "docket_number": "1910-07896", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/j9w5h", "inferred_outcome": "Deferred", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A10", "reasons": [ "A10" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "pandemic — adequate — natural justice require — scheduled — adjourned to another date" ] }, { "case_id": "2020onsbt1725", "citation": "2020 ONSBT 1725 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2020-08-14", "docket_number": "1803-01624", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/j9w2t", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Statutory interpretation — Social benefits legislation — ODSP Act, O. Reg. 222/98, s. 44(1) — Does s. 44(1) require accredited training or certification? — Policy Directive 9.9 overly restrictive and unreasonable — Internal policies not binding where legislation is silent — Liberal and purposive approach applied — Certification requirement rejected — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Guide dog benefit — Did the Appellant prove his dog is a “guide dog” within s. 44(1)? — Medical letters from treating psychiatrists accepted — Credible testimony of disability related tasks performed — Transit authority service animal registration considered — Comfort animal versus pet distinction rejected — Director’s decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Arrears — Retroactivity of benefit payments — Should payment begin at request date despite ongoing training? — Dog acquired and acting as a service animal prior to full training — Purpose to mitigate costs and remove financial barriers — Public funds spent fairly, honestly, and reasonably (Surdivall) — Arrears and ongoing benefits ordered" ] }, { "case_id": "2020onsbt1404", "citation": "2020 ONSBT 1404 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2020-07-30", "docket_number": "1705-04419", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/j9341", "inferred_outcome": "Deferred", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A10", "reasons": [ "A10" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "niece — dialect — interpreter — representative — adjourned" ] }, { "case_id": "2020onsbt1206", "citation": "2020 ONSBT 1206 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2020-05-21", "docket_number": "1912-09806", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/j91wg", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Administrative law — Tribunal jurisdiction — Ontario Disability Support Program Act — Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and render a decision on this appeal — Director’s reliance on s. 21(2) and s. 29 addressed — Distinction between lack of jurisdiction and an unsuccessful appeal — Tribunal satisfied it has jurisdiction to consider applications under s. 44 of O. Reg. 222/98 — Tribunal has jurisdiction | Pensions and social benefits — Mandatory benefits — Health benefits — Are Fleet enema and Anusol HC “surgical supplies and dressings” under s. 44 of O. Reg. 222/98? — Characterisation of items prescribed for surgical preparation and post‑procedure — Policy Directive 9.12 considered, enemas listed as eligible — Director’s narrow view rejected — Costs not otherwise reimbursed — Appeal granted, Reimbursement ordered" ] }, { "case_id": "2020onsbt889", "citation": "2020 ONSBT 889 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2020-04-09", "docket_number": "1908-06007", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/j90ww", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Guide dog benefit — Whether eligibility requires ADI-accredited training under ODSP Policy Directive 9.9 — ODSPA ss. 1(d), 23(10), 38 and ODSP Reg. s. 44(1) considered — Service animal versus pet distinguished on training and tasks — Financial hardship addressed — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Administrative law — Policy instruments — Binding effect of directives — Is Ministry Policy Directive 9.9 determinative where legislation is silent on “service dog” certification? — Tribunal not bound by policy directives — Standardised treatment rationale weighed against statutory scheme — Reliance on non-legislative criteria rejected — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — Social welfare legislation — Ambiguity — Meaning of “guide dog” and “service dog” under ODSPA and Regulation — Gray v. Director, ODSP applied to resolve ambiguity in favour of applicant — Certification by ADI not mandated by statute — Legislative silence construed beneficently — Director’s decision set aside | Procedure — Onus of proof — Tribunal appeals under ODSPA — Whether Appellant discharged onus under s. 23(10) to show Director’s decision was wrong — Evidence of training beyond a pet and documented need accepted — Financial need established — Onus met — Appeal allowed" ] }, { "case_id": "2020onsbt278", "citation": "2020 ONSBT 278 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2020-01-22", "docket_number": "1809-05769", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/j8knm", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP overpayments — Concurrent public benefits — Whether an overpayment existed for the period in dispute — Appellant received income support and CPPD for the same period — CPPD paid ODSP directly but less than ODSP issued — Arrears applied reduced balance — Overpayment amount identified and not disputed — Overpayment confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery and waiver — Financial hardship — Whether recovery of the overpayment should be declined due to financial hardship — Bankruptcy filing evidencing difficult financial situation — Tribunal authority to decline collection affirmed in Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 — Extreme financial hardship found on affirmed testimony — Recovery of overpayment denied — Appeal granted in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt1839", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 1839 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-08-03", "docket_number": "2008-05632", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jjxtk", "inferred_outcome": "Deferred", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A10", "reasons": [ "A10" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "pandemic — income assistance — payment — recovery — deferred" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt1783", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 1783 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-07-28", "docket_number": "2001-00878", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jj8bx", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether impairments and restrictions are substantial — Guidance from Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane — Evidence of severe social anxiety and agoraphobia accepted — Substantial restriction in community and workplace found — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Medical review — Ontario Disability Support Program — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set? — Likelihood of improvement with medications and psychotherapy considered — Young age and new opportunities such as online learning noted — Decision maker satisfied a review is appropriate — Review date set three years from Order" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt1729", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 1729 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-07-21", "docket_number": "2009-06542", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jj8ct", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP overpayments — Assessment — Whether overpayment correctly assessed under s. 14 of the ODSP Act — Application of O Reg 222.98 ss. 38 and 39 to business and rental income — Onus on appellants under s. 23.10 to show decision wrong — Overpayment accurately assessed — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery — Discretion — Should recovery be reduced considering individual circumstances under Surdivall v. Ontario, 2015 ONCA 240 — Tribunal’s discretion to order nonrecovery or partial recovery — Financial hardship and program accountability balanced — Recovery reduced by fifty per cent — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery — Administrative conduct — Did Director’s awareness of rental income and delayed file reviews affect recovery — Prior disclosure of rental income and infrequent communication considered — Failure to conduct timely reviews weighed against full recovery — Overpayment recovery reduced by fifty per cent — Appeal granted in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt1564", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 1564 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-07-06", "docket_number": "2004-03365", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jhn8b", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A5", "reasons": [ "A5" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Statutory interpretation — Social assistance legislation — O. Reg 222/98, s. 22 — Whether the Appellant’s November 2019 purchases were a transfer for inadequate consideration — Adequate consideration where goods and services purchased using a bank card — No intentional transfer for the purpose of qualifying for income support — Director’s characterisation of spending as inadequate consideration rejected — Decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Sanctions — Deemed income charge — Whether the Director could impose a 20 percent deemed income charge until age 65 for a violation of s. 22 — Spending beyond the allowable asset limit not a breach of s. 22 where adequate consideration obtained — Any income deduction ceases as of November 2019 — Monies collected by way of the deemed income charge refunded — Decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Assets — Allowable asset limit set by s. 27(1) of O. Reg 222/98 — Appellant was asset over the allowable limit in the month of November 2019 — Whether asset exceedance affected ODSP entitlement and remedial approach — Director did not determine ineligibility until later and instead imposed a sanction — Not entitled for November 2019" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt1498", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 1498 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-07-02", "docket_number": "1907-05378", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jhktg", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works eligibility — Visitor exclusion — Whether the Appellant was ineligible as a “visitor” under O.Reg. 134/98, s. 6(1)2 — Social welfare legislation construed broadly and generously (Gray v Director of ODSP) — Facts showed community roots and hallmarks of permanency — Administrator’s denial found incorrect — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — Ontario Works Regulations — Meaning of “visitor” — Does “visitor” in s. 6(1)2 adopt IRPA or IRPR definitions or bear its ordinary meaning — Context, purpose and coherence applied — Rizzo and Rizzo Shoes considered — Heading not determinative under Legislation Act, s. 70 — Ordinary meaning preferred — Appellant not a visitor — Appeal granted | Procedure — Jurisdiction — Clean hands — Whether the Tribunal is precluded from adjudicating merits or may deny relief based on clean hands — Tribunal a creature of statute with no equitable power absent authority — OWA ss. 26–28, 67 and SPPA considered — Clean hands irrelevant to eligibility determination — Jurisdiction affirmed — Appeal granted | Procedure — Standard of review — Hearing de novo — Whether the Tribunal must defer to the Administrator or decide correctness — Administrative law standards inapplicable — Tribunal empowered to consider new evidence and make fresh findings — Role is to determine correctness on appeal — Deference rejected — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt1438", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 1438 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-06-24", "docket_number": "2002-01414", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jhkws", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of disability — Does the appellant meet ODSPA, s. 4(1), at the date of decision? — Application of Gray and Crane to substantial impairment and restriction — Verified mental health and developmental conditions assessed against activities of daily living — Burden of proof under s. 23(10) considered — Appeal denied | Statutory interpretation — Prescribed class — Developmental Disabilities Act — Is a psychological assessment alone sufficient to establish membership in the prescribed class under ODSPA regulations? — Meaning of “determined to be eligible” and role of “application entity” under s. 14 — Absence of Developmental Services Ontario eligibility letter — Director’s decision affirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment — Cumulative effect — Were the appellant’s impairments substantial, individually or cumulatively, under s. 4(1)(a)? — Medical and psychological evidence weighed, including HSR and IEWS or ADLI — Conservative treatment and self-sufficiency noted — No anchoring impairment nearing substantiality — Appeal dismissed | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Necessity of analysis — Is it necessary to assess substantial restrictions under s. 4(1)(b) where substantial impairment is not shown? — Three-part test in Crane applied — Tribunal declines to consider restrictions after finding no substantial impairment — Decision of Director affirmed" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt1405", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 1405 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-06-22", "docket_number": "1903-01657", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jhkss", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of “person with a disability” — Does the appellant meet s. 4(1) of the Act? — Guidance from Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane applied — Whole-person assessment of substantial impairment and restrictions — Director’s decision wrong under s. 23(10) — Determination under s. 4(1) satisfied — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Impairments and verification — Verification by qualified person — Were the appellant’s impairments and restrictions verified as required? — Health Status Report and Activities of Daily Living Index accepted — Family physician narrative and ratings considered — Impairments continuous or recurrent and expected to last one year or more — Substantial impairment found — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Do the impairments result in a substantial restriction in workplace functioning? — Gallier considered on person-in-context analysis — Inability to walk, stand, bend, lift and daily pain — Unreliable attendance and poor judgement evidenced by accidents — Family physician opines unable to function in any workplace — Substantial restriction established — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Review of eligibility — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set and at what interval? — Young appellant with potential improvement if addiction acknowledged and treated — Longer period to stabilise and seek treatment warranted — Review date fixed to permit reassessment — Review date set for five years from order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt866", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 866 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-04-23", "docket_number": "1910-07575", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jgnfv", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Statutory interpretation — Ontario Disability Support Plan Act, s. 21(1) — Monthly statement as appealable decision — Does a statement reducing income support for overpayment recovery affect eligibility or amount? — Tribunal jurisdiction confirmed and internal review requirement addressed — Prior member decision distinguished on its facts — Decision affecting amount of income support found appealable — Appeal within jurisdiction confirmed | Evidence — Proof of overpayment balance — Sufficiency of evidence to support outstanding ODSP overpayment — Whether the Director proved the correctness of the August 2019 balance — Appellant’s documents and calculations accepted — Respondent’s records inconsistent and unreliable — Absence of meaningful submission from Director — Balance not established on the evidence — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Recovery discretion — Tribunal discretion to vary or refuse recovery under Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program) — Flexibility in collection to meet legislative objectives — Accountability and individual circumstances considered — Director’s decision to recover specific balance rescinded — Overpayment balance as of August 2019 not recoverable — Decision rescinded and appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt847", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 847 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-04-22", "docket_number": "2005-03925", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jgnh2", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Statutory interpretation — Social assistance — Definition of dependant spouse — Is a spouse who never co-resided “absent from the dwelling place” under O.Reg. 134/98, s. 1(1)(b)? — Edgar v. Director (ODSP) applied — Co-residency prerequisite confirmed — Spouse not a member of the benefit unit — Administrator’s contrary interpretation rejected — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works — Eligibility and overpayments — Whether suspension, cancellation and overpayment were justified based on spouse’s earnings and failure to provide information — Ontario Works Act, s. 7(3)(c), O.Reg. 134/98, s. 14(1), s. 1(1) — No income available to recipient from spouse — Misclassification of spouse as dependant — Suspension, cancellation and overpayment rescinded" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt840", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 840 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-04-22", "docket_number": "1707-06168", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jgncr", "inferred_outcome": "Deferred", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A10", "reasons": [ "A10" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "failure to attend — impairments — adjourned — clinic — multiple" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt749", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 749 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-04-15", "docket_number": "1908-06517", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jgh9n", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets the definition in ODSPA s. 4(1) — Onus under ODSPA s. 23(10) to show Director’s decision was wrong — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Medical and testimonial evidence assessed cumulatively — Decision of Director rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial impairment — Whether impairments were substantial within s. 4(1)(a) — Flexible meaning of “substantial” per Gray — Overlap with functional evidence per Crane — Verified chronic back conditions with severe pain and reduced mobility — Imaging and physician reports corroborating — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial restrictions — Whether substantial restrictions existed under s. 4(1)(b) — Personal care and workplace functioning assessed — Gallier confirms individualised context — Assistance required for dressing and hygiene, limited standing, sitting, walking — Workplace functioning unreasonable even sedentary — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review dates — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Consideration of age and possible future treatment — Impairment not deemed permanently non-improving — Review timeline appropriate in circumstances — Review date set two years from Order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt514", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 514 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-03-10", "docket_number": "1905-03377", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jg7jw", "inferred_outcome": "Deferred", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A10", "reasons": [ "A10" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "adjourned — adequate — legal representative — reasonably able to participate — natural justice require" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt482", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 482 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-03-08", "docket_number": "2002-01567", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jfk1j", "inferred_outcome": "Deferred", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A10", "reasons": [ "A10" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility and overpayments — Assets, liquidity and accessibility — Whether bank assets were accessible or liquid for Ontario Works — O. Reg. 134/98, s. 38(1)a applied to asset limits — Assets neither accessible nor available must be excluded — Guy v. Ontario Works (Administrator) cited — Administrator to re‑review upon new documents — Hearing adjourned with instructions | Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility and overpayments — Inheritance and trusts — Whether inheritance held “in trust” under Last Testament and Will is an asset — Accessibility and availability of inherited funds assessed — Evidence of will terms and estate handling required — Administrator reminded to consider liquidity and accessibility — Hearing adjourned with instructions | Procedure — Adjournments — Additional evidence — Whether adjournment warranted to allow filing of documentary verification — Tribunal prepared to proceed but adjourned after oral evidence — Directions for timelines to file and respond — Onus on Appellant to prove the decision is wrong if matter resumes — Adjournment granted | Pensions and social benefits — Exemptions — Registered Education Savings Plans — Whether $43,348.55 account is an RESP and exempt under s. 39(1)21 — Clarification of banking institution and plan type required — Parties agree a separate RESP is exempt — Administrator to reconsider upon receipt of bank verification — Hearing adjourned with instructions" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt479", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 479 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-03-08", "docket_number": "1802-00988", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jfjxd", "inferred_outcome": "Deferred", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A10", "reasons": [ "A10" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "telephone — postponed — video conference hearing to accommodate — issued — adjourned" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt460", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 460 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-03-05", "docket_number": "1908-06229", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jfjzx", "inferred_outcome": "Deferred", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A10", "reasons": [ "A10" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "adjourned — prepare — database — recess — advised" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt411", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 411 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-02-26", "docket_number": "1908-06571", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jfk05", "inferred_outcome": "Deferred", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A10", "reasons": [ "A10" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "interpreter — concerns — repeat — adjourned — representative" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt313", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 313 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-02-17", "docket_number": "1910-07362", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jfjwc", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) ODSPA — Substantial mental impairment continuous or recurrent and expected to last — Direct and cumulative effect on activities of daily living assessed — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied to “substantial” — Director’s determination overturned — Appeal granted | Evidence — Verification — Expert reports — Whether a post‑decision Psychological Assessment can verify impairments and restrictions — Report articulating developmental nature accepted as reflecting time of Director’s decision — Qualified person verification under s. 4(1)(c) ODSPA satisfied — Weight given to psychological evidence over HSR — Report admitted and relied upon | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Whether substantial impairments result in substantial restriction in a workplace — Contextual assessment per Gallier — Testimony and Psychological Assessment consistent with deficits in communication, self‑direction and work — Sedentary employment and retraining unreasonable — Substantial restriction in workplace functioning found | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98 — Whether to set a review date under s. 5(1) — Developmental impairments not likely to improve — Tribunal satisfied that a review date is not appropriate — If otherwise eligible, income support payable per s. 17 of O. Reg. 222/98 — No review ordered" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt273", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 273 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-02-16", "docket_number": "1901-00489", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jfhf9", "inferred_outcome": "Deferred", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A10", "reasons": [ "A10" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "declared null — niece — void — interpreter — adjourned to the next available" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt272", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 272 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-02-16", "docket_number": "1812-08189", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jfhf6", "inferred_outcome": "Deferred", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A10", "reasons": [ "A10" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "adjourned — verified conditions — natural justice require — unforeseen — adequate" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt254", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 254 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-02-12", "docket_number": "1906-04401", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jfhg2", "inferred_outcome": "Deferred", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A10", "reasons": [ "A10" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "adjournment — legal representative — adequate — adjourned to the first available — discretion" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt197", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 197 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-02-08", "docket_number": "1812-08033", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jfh9s", "inferred_outcome": "Deferred", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A10", "reasons": [ "A10" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "adjourned — adequate — scheduled — interpreter — language" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt192", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 192 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-02-05", "docket_number": "1901-00310", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jfh9x", "inferred_outcome": "Deferred", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A10", "reasons": [ "A10" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "scheduled — postponed — attend — adjourned — telephone" ] }, { "case_id": "2021onsbt104", "citation": "2021 ONSBT 104 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2021-01-22", "docket_number": "1907-05699", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jfhcb", "inferred_outcome": "Deferred", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A10", "reasons": [ "A10" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "representative — adequate — natural justice require — adjourned — fair" ] }, { "case_id": "2022onsbt819", "citation": "2022 ONSBT 819 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2022-04-05", "docket_number": "2108-03611", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jpmsv", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP overpayments — Recovery discretion — Whether to exercise discretion under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 to waive or reduce recovery — Scope of discretion under Surdivall v. Ontario considered — Purposes of ODSPA, including accountability, weighed — Innocent mistake and non‑reporting of OAS examined — Non‑recovery order refused — Appeal dismissed | Pensions and social benefits — Financial hardship — Evidence of means — Did the Appellant establish hardship warranting non‑recovery — Reliability of income and expense evidence assessed, including OAS T4, GST and Trillium, family support — Absence of bank statements noted — Homeownership and potential future recovery considered — Director to set rate consistent with legislation — Director’s decision affirmed" ] }, { "case_id": "2022onsbt726", "citation": "2022 ONSBT 726 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2022-03-25", "docket_number": "2105-02002", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jpkwh", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Assessment of entitlement — Was the overpayment accurately assessed under the ODSP Act and O. Reg. 222/98? — Application of subs. 14(1) ODSPA and ss. 29, 37 of the Regulation — Unreported CPPD income exceeding budgetary requirements — Calculations not disputed — Overpayment accurately assessed — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Discretion to recover — Should recovery be reduced given administrative error and delay? — Surdivall v. Ontario considered — Infrequent communication and failure to act on reported CPPD — Undue hardship evidenced by monthly deficit — Tribunal exercises discretion to limit collection — Recovery reduced to August month at $25 per month — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Income treatment — CPPD benefits — How are CPPD lump sum and monthly payments treated as income under the ODSP scheme? — CPPD not exempt, dollar for dollar deduction per ss. 29, 37 O. Reg. 222/98 — Subsection 37(3) allocation of retroactive payment to months intended — Concurrent ODSP and CPPD not permitted — CPPD income deducted from ODSP entitlement" ] }, { "case_id": "2022onsbt681", "citation": "2022 ONSBT 681 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2022-03-22", "docket_number": "2109-04024", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jpkkj", "inferred_outcome": "Deferred", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A10", "reasons": [ "A10" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "caseworker — overpayment is recoverable is deferred — income assistance — pandemic — wrong" ] }, { "case_id": "2022onsbt560", "citation": "2022 ONSBT 560 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2022-03-09", "docket_number": "2001-00384", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jpkcd", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Guide Dog Benefit eligibility — Whether the Appellant’s dog is a “guide dog” under s. 44(1)5 of O. Reg. 222/98 — Liberal and purposive interpretation of social welfare legislation — “Guide dog” encompasses service dogs performing disability‑related tasks — Director’s decision rescinded — Arrears and ongoing benefits payable — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits legislation — ODSP Policy Directive 9.9 — Can internal policy require ADI‑accredited certification absent in the Act or Regulations? — Policy not binding on the Tribunal — Overly restrictive and unreasonable where legislation is silent — Large and liberal interpretation applied — Director’s reliance on policy rejected — Appeal granted | Evidence — Proof of service animal function — Sufficiency of evidence to establish disability‑related tasks — Totality of the evidence including credible oral testimony and medical letters considered — Formal certification not required to prove training or performance — Objective evidence helpful but not prerequisite — Improvement in symptoms corroborative — Balance of probabilities met — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2022onsbt123", "citation": "2022 ONSBT 123 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2022-01-17", "docket_number": "2105-02154", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jpdf6", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Overpayment assessment — Whether the Director correctly assessed an overpayment due to OAS, CPP and GIS — Obligation to report income from all sources — Caseworkers’ notes confirming federal income from October 2014 — Calculation under the Act accepted — Appeal granted in part — Overpayment assessed correctly | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery and waiver — Discretion to reduce or not recover overpayments — Whether egregious administrative delay and hardship justify non-recovery — Factors guiding recovery identified — Surdivall v. Ontario, para. 35 cited, Mavi referenced — Overpayment reduced to one year only — Appeal granted in part — Overpayment reduced to $2,400 and not recovered" ] }, { "case_id": "2023onsbt1724", "citation": "2023 ONSBT 1724 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2023-05-04", "docket_number": "2210-04454", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jz1xx", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works — Eligibility and assets — Whether bank balances representing crowd funding were “accessible” assets — Guy v. Administrator, Ontario Works applied — Funds raised for hospital and funeral costs not available for support and maintenance — Deposits and bank drafts consistent with stated purpose — Overpayment assessment based on inaccessible funds found incorrect — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Discretion to recover — Whether the Tribunal should exercise discretion to forego recovery — Surdivall v. Ontario considered — Factors assessed including reason for overpayment, individual circumstances, and Act’s purposes — Recovery contrary to effectively serving people needing assistance — Overpayment recovery ordered not to proceed — Overpayment decision rescinded and amounts recovered to be returned" ] }, { "case_id": "2023onsbt1496", "citation": "2023 ONSBT 1496 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2023-04-27", "docket_number": "2102-00599", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jxtmb", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works — Overpayments — Whether the Administrator correctly assessed an overpayment for undeclared employment income — Income definition and exemptions under Ontario Works Act and Regulations, ss. 7(3)(b), 40(1), 48 — Reporting of Uber earnings and communication with caseworker — Confusion over “system generated letter” noted — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Discretionary recovery — Surdivall discretion — Should the Tribunal reduce and set recovery of the overpayment based on individual circumstances? — Factors considered including reason for overpayment, hardship, program objectives — Overpayment reduced by fifty percent to share accountability — Recovery set at $50 per month for 12 months — Recovery ordered at reduced amount and rate" ] }, { "case_id": "2023onsbt1364", "citation": "2023 ONSBT 1364 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2023-04-18", "docket_number": "2101-00288", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/jxscf", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1)(a) and (b) at the time of the Director’s decision — Interpretation of “substantial” applied from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane — GAD, MDD and social dysfunction cumulatively substantial — Workplace function substantially restricted — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Verification — Were impairments and restrictions verified by a person with prescribed qualifications under s. 4(1)(c) — Family Physician’s Health Status Report, IEWS and ADLI considered — Restrictions and likely duration verified — Director’s contrary determination not preferred — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Evidence of forthcoming counselling and potential treatment changes — Impairment not found unlikely to improve permanently — Review date fixed two years from order — Review date set | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Onus of proof — Did the Appellant satisfy s. 23(10) that the Director’s decision was wrong — Medical evidence and testimony accepted on balance of probabilities — Director’s decision rescinded — Income support payable if otherwise eligible under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2023onsbt3532", "citation": "2023 ONSBT 3532 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2023-01-19", "docket_number": "2302-01198", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/k179x", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Statutory interpretation — Social assistance regulations — ODSP exemptions — Does the Canada Student Grant for Students with Disabilities fall within s. 43(1)2.1 of O. Reg. 222/98 — Purpose of grant for academic expenses considered — Broad income rule in s. 37 and exemption scheme analysed — CSGSD characterised as intended for educational costs — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP income support — OSAP interaction — May the Tribunal depart from OSAP’s breakdown and approve a higher transportation amount under s. 43(1)2.1 — Director’s and OSAP’s allocations not binding — Local travel allowance of $85.63 found inadequate — Reasonable transportation set at $650 per month — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — ODSP income support — Whether the Director correctly assessed an overpayment for months September to January — Recalculation after exempting CSGSD and increasing transportation costs — Application of s. 37 and s. 43(1)2.1 to OSAP funding — Resulting negative balance eliminates excess income — Decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Repayment — Discretion — Whether relief from repayment for financial hardship should be granted — Appeal resolved on recalculation of exempt amounts — No need to address remaining issues — Determination that overpayment not owing renders hardship question moot — Issue not reached" ] }, { "case_id": "2024onsbt921", "citation": "2024 ONSBT 921 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2024-02-22", "docket_number": "2306-04081", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/k3slv", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — Does the Appellant meet s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997? — Verified mental health impairments, duration and restrictions accepted — Sworn testimony consistent with Health Status Report — Director’s decision found wrong under s. 23(10) — Appellant found a person with a disability — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Whether substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b) — Intellectual and Emotional Wellness Scale and Activities of Daily Living Index support restrictions — Anxiety, mood lability, concentration deficits impede employment expectations — Substantial restriction in workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for the disability determination? — Ongoing treatment and recent minor improvements noted — Continuing care with family doctor and therapy — Review date set for one year | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Interpretation of “substantial impairment” and “substantial restriction” — Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Flexible meaning tied to individual circumstances and three separate tests — Gallier considered on person‑specific assessment — Interpretation applied to find eligibility — Appeal allowed" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt4274", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 4274 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-12-31", "docket_number": "2506-04009", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/khqw0", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "recipient — subclause — matrimonial home — spouse — overpayment was correct" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt4185", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 4185 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-12-29", "docket_number": "2505-03467", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/khq1c", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "non-educational funding — income — overpayment was correct — funds — received" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt4140", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 4140 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-12-16", "docket_number": "2506-04129", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/khq38", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "assess an overpayment — employment insurance — financial hardship — benefit unit — overpayment was correct" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt3920", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 3920 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-12-08", "docket_number": "2505-03546", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/khjck", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "income — dependant spouse — overpayment was correct — recovery — benefit unit" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt3720", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 3720 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-11-21", "docket_number": "2505-03191", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kh92t", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "information — family members — overpayment was correct — rent — eligibility" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt3702", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 3702 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-11-14", "docket_number": "2505-03155", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kh92l", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "overpayment was correct — self-employment income — assess an overpayment — form — written" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt3561", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 3561 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-11-12", "docket_number": "2504-02533", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kh7bp", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "educational — overpayment was correct — deposited — income — caseworker" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt3648", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 3648 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-11-10", "docket_number": "2507-04507", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kh7jm", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "caseworker — overpayment was correct — retroactive — recovery — financial hardship" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt3477", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 3477 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-10-30", "docket_number": "2504-02607", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kh4k8", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "spousal allowance — overpayment was correct — caseworker — income support — received" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt3422", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 3422 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-10-28", "docket_number": "2504-02711", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kh4kp", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "home insurance costs — overpayment was correct — accountability — income — received" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt3307", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 3307 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-10-14", "docket_number": "2504-02348", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kh4bz", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "overpayment was correct — report her income — submitted — self-employment income — stated" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt2935", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 2935 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-09-12", "docket_number": "2503-01633", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kg37j", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "backlog — income support — overpayment was correct — caseworker — letter" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt2859", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 2859 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-09-09", "docket_number": "2502-01049", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kg33c", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "income support — caseworker — overpayment was correct — receiving the survivor benefits — notes" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt2820", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 2820 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-09-08", "docket_number": "2502-00940", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kg32w", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "early retirement benefits — overpayment balance — recovery — overpayment was correct — income support" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt2608", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 2608 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-08-21", "docket_number": "2502-00937", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kfknn", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "overpayment was correct — settlement — full-time student — request for internal review — income support" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt2490", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 2490 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-08-12", "docket_number": "2504-02345", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kf2g1", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "overpayment was correct — payment — rent — caseworker — income support" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt2488", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 2488 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-08-12", "docket_number": "2410-06325", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kf2bs", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "income support — overpayment was correct — caseworker — bank — receiving this federal income" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt2445", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 2445 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-08-07", "docket_number": "2501-00589", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kf2dw", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "spouse — overpayment was correct — income support — received — submits" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt2341", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 2341 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-07-29", "docket_number": "2501-00515", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kf0k9", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "overpayment was correct — dependent adult — e-transfers — recovery — bank" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt2265", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 2265 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-07-22", "docket_number": "2501-00309", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kdt1q", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "income — assess an overpayment — recovery — calculation — overpayment was correct" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt2155", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 2155 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-07-14", "docket_number": "2412-08029", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kdksj", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "overpayment was correct — caseworker — recalled — conversation — expenses" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt2071", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 2071 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-07-07", "docket_number": "2412-08016", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kd9ns", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "overpayment was correct — income replacement benefits — financial hardship — recovery — budgetary" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt2069", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 2069 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-07-07", "docket_number": "2502-01437", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kd9pt", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "overpayment was correct — financial hardship — overpayment amount — limit to recovery — food" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt1892", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 1892 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-06-24", "docket_number": "2407-04700", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kd450", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "income — recipient — overpayment was correctly — monetary gifts — financial" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt1639", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 1639 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-06-02", "docket_number": "2410-06270", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kcqqd", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "benefit unit — income — overpayment was correctly — wife — husband" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt1588", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 1588 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-05-28", "docket_number": "2408-05192", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kcqm0", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "overpayment was correctly — discrepancy — amount — benefit unit — financial hardship" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt1338", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 1338 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-05-02", "docket_number": "2410-06540", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kc3s4", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Whether decision to assess an overpayment was correct — All payments considered income under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 37(1) — Undeclared OAS GIS income treated as income — No evidence of error in calculation — Appellants’ onus under s. 23(1) of the Act — Appeal granted in part, assessment confirmed — Assessment confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery and discretion — Should the overpayment be recovered given administrative error and hardship? — Surdivall v. Ontario, 2014 ONCA 240 applied to collection flexibility — Expenses exceed income, medical needs established — Administrative error contributed to overpayment — Any recovery payments previously collected to be reimbursed — Appeal granted in part — Recovery refused | Statutory interpretation — Trustees — Interpretation of ODSP Act, s. 12 and O. Reg. 222/98, s. 49 — Whether failure to periodically inquire amounts to administrative error — Trustee appointment and annual reporting duties analysed — Director’s policy directive 10.2 considered — Lack of due diligence found over lengthy period — Contributed to overpayment — Overpayment not recovered — Administrative error found" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt1165", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 1165 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-04-16", "docket_number": "2410-06366", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kc1k6", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "full-time student — overpayment was correct — schooling — recovery — informed her caseworker" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt1153", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 1153 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-04-14", "docket_number": "2407-04426", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kc1hf", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "overpayment was correct — spouse — financial hardship — loans — recovery" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt917", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 917 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-03-25", "docket_number": "2410-06079", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kbs77", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "federal income — amount — adjournment — overpayment was correct — expenses" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt728", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 728 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-03-12", "docket_number": "2402-01210R", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kbrxv", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "amount — overpayment was correct — income — recovery — grandchildren" ] }, { "case_id": "2025onsbt594", "citation": "2025 ONSBT 594 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2025-02-25", "docket_number": "2205-02257R", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kb006", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility and assets — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 and O Reg 222/98 — Whether the Appellant’s interests in Property A and Property B were accessible or available — Application of s. 5(1)(c), s. 27(1) and s. 28(1) — Guy v. Ontario Works considered — Bare trust agreements established — Interests not accessible or available — Decision of the Director found wrong — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Cancellation of income support — Whether the Director correctly cancelled income support and assessed an overpayment for December 2017 to February 2022 — Properties excluded as assets as neither was accessible nor available — Onus under subs. 23(10) satisfied — Issues of calculation and collectability rendered moot — Director’s decision rescinded | Procedure — Hearings — Written hearing — Whether the Tribunal could proceed by way of a paper hearing without the Appellant’s testimony — Reliance on written record acceptable where no prejudice — Director, Ontario Disability Support Program v. Miller referenced — No Request for Summons completed by the Director — Multiple adjournments and accommodations noted — Proceeding in writing appropriate — Appeal determined on written submissions | Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Apprehension of bias — Request for another adjudicator based on alleged bias — Strong presumption of adjudicative impartiality affirmed — Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada and Committee for Justice and Liberty cited — Denial of adjournment and representative issue not bias — Reasonable apprehension of bias not established — Allegation rejected" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1097", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1097 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-31", "docket_number": "2510-07404", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkdv", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Whether substantial impairments and substantial restrictions established — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied to “substantial” — Evidence of episodic impairments and bad days considered per Lloyd — Ability to attend to personal care and function in a workplace substantially restricted — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Verification — Section 4(1)(c) verification by prescribed professional — Were the impairment, its likely duration, and restrictions properly verified? — Health Status Report, IEWS and ADLI completed by family physician of 15 years — Consistency between testimony and medical narratives accepted — Onus under s. 23(10) met — Verification satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP administration — Review date — Ontario Regulation 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set despite finding of disability? — Age, ongoing treatment, medication management, and pending investigations considered — Potential improvement in impairments acknowledged — Review date set for three years from Order date — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1095", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1095 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-31", "docket_number": "2510-06899", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkdp", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Medical supplies and necessary benefits — Entitlement to coverage for a prosthetic leg with a microprocessor knee under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 44(1) — Whether the Appellant medically “requires” the device given instability, falls, pain, and limited function — Weight of treating team’s verification and safety considerations — Program of last resort and cost assessed — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits regulations — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 44(1)1.iii and s. 44(1)1.v — Does “requires” and the ADP consumer contribution provision authorise funding of the microprocessor knee? — Policy enlarging s. 44(1)1.iii considered — Director had jurisdiction under either paragraph — Misreading of warranty costs addressed — Decision under s. 23(10) of the Act found wrong — Decision rescinded" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1089", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1089 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-31", "docket_number": "2510-06762", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkd8", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant met the thresholds of substantial impairment and substantial restriction at the time of the Director’s decision — Activities of Daily Living Index and Intellectual and Emotional Wellness Scale considered — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Appeal granted, Director’s decision rescinded | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial” — Application of Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Whether “substantial” is assessed flexibly and with separate analyses for impairment and restriction — Consideration of whole person and cumulative effects — Broader coverage for significant barriers affirmed — Determination applied, disability status recognized | Evidence — Administrative tribunal — Weighing medical documentation — Onus under ODSPA, s. 23(10) — How should unreliable testimony be treated against detailed Nurse Practitioner evidence and assessment tools? — Limited weight to Appellant’s testimony due to reliability concerns — Medical records, IEWS and ADLI preferred — Balance of probabilities met | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set where impairment may improve — Consideration of renewed commitment to treat substance misuse — Decision maker satisfied a review is appropriate — Review date established in accordance with regulation — Disability determination maintained with review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1076", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1076 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-31", "docket_number": "2503-02223", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkk9m", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability, s. 4(1) — Does the Appellant meet the definition at the time of the Director’s decision? — Verified mental health impairments assessed cumulatively — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year or more — Director’s determination set aside — Appeal granted | Evidence — Administrative tribunals — New medical evidence — s. 64(1) Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — May post‑decision medical reports be considered if they relate to the effective date? — Omar and Jemiolo followed — Report accepted as relating back — Certain impairments not verified by GP excluded — Remaining impairments considered | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Substantial restriction — Whether impairments resulted in a substantial restriction in the workplace under s. 4(1)(b) — Panic attacks disrupting everyday functions — IEWS ratings and psychiatrist’s opinion that Appellant is currently unable to work — ADLI given limited weight for mental health — Substantial restriction in workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP administration — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairments may improve? — Decision maker satisfied that improvement is possible — Review date appropriate to reassess disability status — Review date set for two years from Order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1099", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1099 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-30", "docket_number": "2510-06942", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkdq", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works — Overpayments — Whether benefit unit’s income exceeded budgetary requirements for January to May — Calculation under O. Reg. 134/98 and application of exemptions — Student aid treated as income after allowable education costs — Benefit unit ineligible during months at issue — Appeal denied | Statutory interpretation — Social assistance — Income definition — Are Manitoba Student Aid loan and grant amounts, beyond exempt education costs, chargeable income under O. Reg. 134/98? — Scope of s. 48(1) and exemptions in s. 54(1)1.iii, 2, 2.1 — No express exemption for personal living allowance — Inclusion of non‑exempt amounts as chargeable income — Overpayment confirmed | Statutory interpretation — Income allocation — Lump‑sum payments — Does s. 48(3) require allocation of student aid to months to which it relates despite receipt in April? — “A payment … made with respect to a number of months shall be applied to those months” — Allocation across January to August upheld — Overpayment period maintained | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery and collection — Discretion — Should relief from recovery be granted under the Ontario Works Act, applying Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program)? — Factors considered, absence of administrative error, hardship not exceptional — Broad and flexible discretion exercised reasonably — Relief from collection refused | Procedure — Appeals — Onus — What is the onus under s. 28(11) of the Ontario Works Act? — Appellants must show on balance of probabilities that the Administrator’s decision was incorrect — Tribunal satisfied onus not met — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1094", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1094 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-30", "docket_number": "2510-06893", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkdn", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Definition of person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant met the statutory definition at the date of the Director’s decision — Medical verification and activities of daily living assessed — Person with a disability within the meaning of subsection 4(1) found — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment and restriction — Pain-related conditions — Gray v. Director ODSP, Crane v. Ontario — Whether impairments and resulting restrictions are “substantial” — Cumulative assessment of bilateral shoulder and neck pain — Workplace functioning and personal care limitations established — Substantiality thresholds met under s. 4(1)(a) and (b) | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date where impairment may improve — Age and continued efforts at treatment considered — Pharmacotherapy and injections ongoing — Review date set for four years | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus of proof — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Medical records and credible testimony weighed — Verification by prescribed professionals accepted — Decision of the Director rescinded and appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1093", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1093 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-30", "docket_number": "2510-06891", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkdm", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) of the ODSPA — Onus under s. 23(10) to show Director’s decision was wrong — Gray and Crane applied to “substantial” and three-part test — Decision of Director rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial impairment — Do Major Depression with anxious symptoms meet the threshold in s. 4(1)(a) — IEWS severe ratings and physician narrative corroborating testimony — Flexible meaning of “substantial” per Gray, whole-person approach per Crane — Impairment found substantial | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial restriction — Do the impairments substantially restrict workplace functioning under s. 4(1)(b) — ADLI severe limitations and credible testimony on social withdrawal and poor motivation — Gallier context-specific assessment applied — Substantial restriction in any workplace found | Evidence — Medical evidence — Weight of evidence and treatment — How to treat absence of pharmacotherapy and counselling in assessing substantiality — HSR, IEWS, ADLI and sworn testimony found reliable — No adverse inference where mental health creates barrier to treatment — Additional medical documentation not received — Evidence considered without additional records" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1092", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1092 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-30", "docket_number": "2510-06857", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkdk", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — CPP‑D income — Whether the overpayment was validly assessed and correctly calculated — Appellant failed to report income under Regulation, subsection 12(1) — Onus under ODSP Act, s. 23(10) not met — Overpayment for period confirmed — Appeal granted in part — Overpayment validly assessed and amount correctly calculated | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery and discretion — Circumstances affecting recovery — Should recovery be reduced under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act? — Objectives in s. 1 considered and flexibility from Surdivall v. Ontario applied — Balance between supporting persons with a disability and accountability to taxpayers — Recovery reduced by 25 percent | Pensions and social benefits — Financial hardship — Hardship claim — Did the Appellant establish hardship sufficient to vary the recoverable amount? — Income exceeded expenses, investments acknowledged, debts paid above minimums — Insufficient evidence of enormous hardship — Financial documentation not provided — Hardship not established | Pensions and social benefits — Administrative error — Due diligence — Did the Director’s failure to conduct regular reviews and CRA checks justify a reduction in recovery? — Failure to conduct regular file reviews found to be lack of due diligence and administrative error — Shared responsibility for accrual of overpayment — Recovery reduced by 25 percent" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1090", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1090 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-30", "docket_number": "2510-06813", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkdf", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether Appellant is a “person with a disability” at the date of the Director’s decision — Impairments, duration and restrictions verified by nurse practitioner — Onus under ODSPA s. 23(10) met on balance of probabilities — Director’s decision rescinded — Income support payable under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial” — Application of Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane — Flexible, contextual approach to substantial impairment and restriction — Overlap between paragraphs (a) and (b) considered in assessing whole person — Totality of evidence standard affirmed — Significant but not severe barriers encompassed — Interpretation applied to find substantiality — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Whether substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace proven — ADLI moderate limitations and use of cane for mobility — Part‑time work about 15 hours weekly with ongoing pain and fatigue — Credible and reliable testimony accepted — Substantial workplace restriction established at date of decision — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Prognosis “deteriorate” for hip and shoulder osteoarthritis — Ongoing pain despite arthroplasty, physiotherapy attempts and pharmacotherapy — Tribunal satisfied impairments not likely to improve — No review date directed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1088", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1088 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-30", "docket_number": "2509-06632", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkc9", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Definition under ODSPA — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) criteria at the date of the Director’s decision — Application of Gray and Crane to “substantial” in s. 4(1) — Verified impairments and duration established — Director’s decision found wrong under s. 23(10) — Appeal allowed and decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Do substantial mental impairments result in substantial restriction in workplace function under s. 4(1)(b)? — IEWS moderate ratings on attention, comprehension and concentration — Gallier applied to assess person in own context — Workplace tasks could not be completed — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible | Evidence — Medical records and testimony — Weight and credibility — What weight to give the Health Status Report, IEWS, and sworn testimony under s. 23(10)? — Family doctor’s longitudinal evidence accepted as reliable — Testimony found credible and consistent with IEWS — Treatment history considered under Jemiolo — Medical and testimonial evidence accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Potential for improvement with new medication noted — Decision maker not satisfied impairment will not improve — Review date appropriate on record — Review date set for three years from order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1085", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1085 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-30", "docket_number": "2509-06461", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkbs", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability support — ODSPA s. 4(1)(a), substantial impairment — Whether the Appellant’s PTSD and MDD were substantial — Gray v. Director, ODSP applied, flexible meaning of substantial — Crane v. Ontario considered, whole person assessment — IEWS severe and moderate ratings relied on — Psychiatrist’s report proximate to decision date reviewed — Substantial impairment found — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Disability support — ODSPA s. 4(1)(b), substantial restriction — Whether impairments caused substantial restriction in a workplace — Gallier considered, individual context applied — ADLI severe and moderate ratings persuasive — Attention, concentration and memory deficits affect workplace tasks — Coping day to day not dispositive under Gray — Substantial workplace restriction established — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Disability support — ODSPA s. 4(1)(c), verification — Whether impairments, duration and restrictions were verified by prescribed practitioner — Health Status Report and ADLI completed by Nurse Practitioner — Medications and psychotherapy documented — Appellant’s testimony largely consistent with medical evidence — Verification requirements met on balance of probabilities — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability support — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1), setting review date — Whether a review date should be set given potential improvement — Appellant’s age and continued efforts at treatment noted — Impairments not necessarily permanent — Review date fixed two years from Order — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1081", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1081 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-30", "docket_number": "2509-06168", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkb9", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Onus under s. 23(10) — Did the Appellant meet the definition at the date of the Director’s decision? — Verification by prescribed professional satisfied — Director’s decision found wrong — Income support payable under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial impairment — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(a) — Gray v. Director and Crane v. Director applied — Is substantiality established on the totality and cumulative effect of impairments? — Chronic pain, depression, fatigue and sleep dysfunction accepted — Treatment efforts commensurate — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Activities of daily living — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(b) — Director v. Gallier considered — Do impairments cause substantial restriction in workplace functioning? — ADL and IEWS ratings support limitations — Personal circumstances, age and work history weighed — Substantial restriction in workplace functioning found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairment not likely to improve? — Age and longstanding impairments considered — Evidence of persistent limitations accepted — Determination not to be reviewed — No review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1080", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1080 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-30", "docket_number": "2508-05733", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkb0", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Failure to provide information — Ontario Works Act, s. 7(3), s. 14, O. Reg. 134/98, s. 14(1) — Whether the Administrator provided a reasonable period to comply before cancelling assistance — Four-factor approach considered — Wide-ranging third-party documentation sought within weeks — Unreasonably short timeframe found — Rea v Simcoe applied — Cancellation rescinded, assistance reinstated retroactive, appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Information requests — Clarity and necessity — Was the Administrator’s request sufficiently clear and reasonably necessary to assess eligibility and amount of assistance? — Core information under the Act and regulation identified — No request for in-laws’ financial information — Substantial compliance feasible — Findings supportive but not determinative of outcome — Appeal granted | Procedure — Mootness — Scope of appeal — Whether the suspension decision was superseded by the later cancellation decision — Parties agreed it was moot — Tribunal confined review to correctness of the cancellation decision as of its date — Earlier suspension decision rescinded as having no practical effect — Suspension decision rescinded" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1079", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1079 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-30", "docket_number": "2510-07029", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkdt", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Employment Insurance income — Definition of overpayment and eligibility reassessment — Whether the Administrator correctly assessed an overpayment for unreported EI overlapping with Ontario Works assistance — EI not an exempt income source — Overlapping benefit payments established — Administrator’s decision correct — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery — Discretion to recover — Surdivall v Ontario Disability Support Program, 2014 ONCA 240 — Whether the Tribunal should reduce and delay recovery having regard to individual circumstances and hardship — Factors considered include reason, circumstances, hardship, objectives of the Act — Efforts to enhance employability acknowledged — Overpayment reduced and recovery delayed 18 months | Pensions and social benefits — Income rules — Lump-sum payments — O. Reg. 134/98, s. 48(3) — Whether lump-sum EI must be attributed to the months to which it relates — Lump-sum EI confirmed as non-exempt income — Attribution to March to June 2024 required — Duty to report income despite delayed Service Canada decision — Administrator’s allocation confirmed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1078", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1078 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-30", "docket_number": "2507-05259", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkk9x", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — Whether impairments are substantial and verified under ODSPA s. 4(1)(a) and (c) — Chronic Lower Back Pain and Major Depression, Secondary found substantial — Medical verification by Family Doctor accepted — Gray and Crane applied to substantiality — Director’s decision wrong — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Whether impairments cause substantial restriction under ODSPA s. 4(1)(b) — Direct and cumulative effect assessed using ADLI and testimony — Severe limitations in Physical Activities and Mobility — Restrictions in any workplace, sedentary or physical — Gallier applied to individualised assessment — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Tribunal powers — Onus — ODSPA s. 23(10) — Onus on Appellant to satisfy Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Tribunal relied on consistent testimony and medical evidence in DDP, HSR, IEWS and ADLI — Substantiality proven on balance of probabilities — Decision of Director rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Decision maker not satisfied impairments are unlikely to improve — Appellant’s age and continued efforts at treatment considered — Review date appropriate — Review set for three years — Income support payable if otherwise eligible" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1075", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1075 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-30", "docket_number": "2503-01954", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkk9l", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” (ODSPA, s. 4(1)) — Whether the Appellant met all three statutory criteria at the time of the Director’s decision — Substantial impairments found cumulatively substantial — Gray and Crane applied to interpret “substantial” flexibly — Verified duration and restrictions established — Appeal granted | Evidence — New medical evidence — ODSP appeal — Whether post-decision psychiatric letter relates to the Appellant’s condition at the effective date of the Director’s decision — Omar and Jemiolo considered on temporal relevance — Presumption that reports speak as of their date rebutted by explicit indication — New medical evidence considered | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial restriction — Workplace functioning — Whether substantial restriction in the workplace established notwithstanding ADLI “No limitation” ratings — IEWS severity ratings and narratives preferred for mental health impairments — Consistent testimony and psychiatrist reports of difficulty meeting job demands — Employment and retraining unreasonable — Disability status recognised | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set where impairments may improve with treatment — Evidence of changing pharmacotherapy and possible improvement — Decision maker not satisfied impairment unlikely to improve — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1073", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1073 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-27", "docket_number": "2510-06956", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkdr", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Assessment — Whether overpayment was validly assessed under the Ontario Works Act — Definition of overpayment under s. 19 applied — Onus on appellant under s. 28(11) considered — Appellant reported income, but assistance exceeded entitlement — Administrator’s typographical error corrected to true value — Assessment of overpayment confirmed — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery and waiver — Discretion — Should recovery be reduced due to administrative error? — Surdivall v Ontario Disability Support Program, 2014 ONCA 240 cited — Broad but reasonable discretion to forego recovery — Administrative error in applying student earnings exemptions — Individual circumstances and hardship factors weighed — Recovery reduced by fifty percent — Appeal granted in part | Procedure — Absence of party — Hearing management — Authority to proceed where appellant absent — Tribunal waited and confirmed notice and attendance — Reliance on Director, Ontario Disability Support Program v. Miller, Divisional Court — Sufficient evidence on file to decide merits — Typographical error in amount corrected to true value — Proceeding in absence permitted and amount corrected" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1072", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1072 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-27", "docket_number": "2510-06845", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkdh", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Person with a disability — Is the Appellant a person with a disability under s. 4(1)? — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Impairments continuous or recurrent and verified by a person with prescribed qualifications — Tribunal satisfied definition met at the date of the Director’s decision — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairments and restrictions — Were substantial impairments and substantial restrictions in activities of daily living established? — Cumulative assessment of shortness of breath and major depression — IEWS and ADLI supportive — Gallier contextual approach applied to workplace functioning — Substantial restriction in the workplace found — Substantial impairments established — Disability determination confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Onus — Whether the Appellant discharged the onus under s. 23(10) to show the Director’s decision was wrong — Sworn testimony and medical evidence preferred — Investigations and treatment considered, including specialist consultations and pharmacotherapy, per Jemiolo — Totality of the evidence weighed — Onus discharged, Director’s decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — Whether a review date should be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Decision maker not satisfied the impairment is not likely to improve — Age and continued efforts at treatment considered — Review date appropriate in the circumstances — Review date set four years from the Order" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1071", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1071 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-27", "docket_number": "2509-06389", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkbn", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” under s. 4(1) of the ODSPA — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Totality of medical evidence and testimony considered — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions established — Director’s decision found wrong under s. 23(10) — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — ODSPA s. 4(1)(c) — Whether impairments, likely duration and restrictions were verified by a person with prescribed qualifications — Health Status Report by nurse practitioner accepted — IEWS and ADLI referenced — Longitudinal care since 2017 noted — Onus under s. 23(10) satisfied — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Substantial restriction — Whether OCD-related impairments caused substantial restriction in personal care or community functioning within s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier considered on contextual assessment — Compulsions and rituals consuming day, preventing leaving home and eating — ADLI contextualised by IEWS — Substantial restriction found — Director’s decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Evidence suggests condition may still be responsive to further treatment — Specialised therapy avenues not fully exhausted — Decision maker not satisfied impairment unlikely to improve — Review scheduled one year from Order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1070", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1070 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-27", "docket_number": "2509-06431", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkbq", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Appeal — Is the Appellant a person with a disability under s. 4(1) ODSPA? — Director’s decision rescinded following assessment of HSR, IEWS, ADLI, specialist reports, and testimony — Substantial impairments and substantial workplace restriction established — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Review date addressed under O. Reg. 222/98 — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability definition — Substantial impairment — Whether impairments were substantial within s. 4(1)(a) — Guidance applied from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane — Totality of medical evidence and testimony considered, including IEWS ratings and treatment — Continuous or recurrent impairment expected to last one year or more — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — Disability definition — Workplace function — Whether the Appellant was substantially restricted in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b) — Tribunal applies Gallier, considering the person in her own situation — IEWS and ADLI show deficits in concentration, comprehension, dexterity, energy — Functional impact on tasks and stamina established — Substantial workplace restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Disability definition — Overall entitlement — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability under s. 4(1) — Verification by a person with prescribed qualifications accepted under s. 4(1)(c) — Direct and cumulative effects across activities of daily living assessed — Tribunal satisfied thresholds of substantial impairment and restriction met — Person with a disability determined | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP review — Review date — Whether a review date should be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Consideration of disease stabilization, expected deterioration, age, and potential treatment modalities — Balancing ongoing symptoms against possibility of improvement — Review date fixed for reassessment in three years — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1069", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1069 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-27", "docket_number": "2509-06211", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkbf", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Disability determination — Whether the appellant’s impairments were “substantial” within s. 4(1)(a) — Application of Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario in assessing substantial impairment — Cumulative assessment of pain and depression, IEWS ratings, treatment context — Testimony found credible and reliable — Substantial impairment established — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Activities of daily living — Whether impairments caused a substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier considered in assessing restrictions in the appellant’s own context — ADLI moderate limitations and credible testimony on work capacity — Limited hours not barring finding of substantial restriction — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Verification — Whether verification by a prescribed professional satisfied s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report by physician with prescribed qualifications confirming impairments, duration and restrictions — Onus on appellant under ODSPA s. 23(10) discharged — Supplemental evidence and treatment history considered cumulatively — Verification adequate — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — Whether a review date should be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Prospective improvement possible given pending investigations and recent psychiatric connection — Decision maker satisfied impairment may improve — Review timeline appropriate in circumstances — Review date set two years from order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1068", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1068 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-27", "docket_number": "2509-06649", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkcj", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Definition of person with a disability, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant had substantial impairments and substantial restrictions at the date of the Director’s decision — Cumulative effect on ability to function in a workplace — Medical and testimonial evidence accepted — Appeal granted and Director’s decision rescinded — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible | Evidence — Medical records — Documents predating and postdating Director’s decision — Whether postdecision psychological report could be considered and weight assigned — Evidence corroborating impairments and restrictions as of the decision date — Tribunal ascribes significant weight to psychologist’s assessment referring to the decision date — Appellant’s testimony found consistent and reliable — Admission and weighting of evidence confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Review of disability status — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Impairments not likely to improve — Barriers to treatment and ongoing mental and physical conditions — Tribunal directs no review of the determination — No review date set | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits legislation — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial” and separate tests — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Flexible meaning tied to individual circumstances and purposes of the Act — Overlap of evidence for impairment and restriction recognised — Three-part framework confirmed — Appeal allowed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1067", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1067 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-27", "docket_number": "2509-06163", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkb8", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Disability definition — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability — Application of Gray and Crane to “substantial” and three-part test — Verified impairments and duration accepted — Substantial restriction in personal care, community and workplace found — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Evidence assessment — Medical verification — Whether impairments and restrictions were substantial at the Director’s decision date — Weight of HSR, IEWS, ADLI, psychiatric assessment, and testimony — Gallier supports person-specific analysis — Cumulative impact across core cognitive and mobility domains accepted — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions established | Pensions and social benefits — Tribunal appeals — Burden of proof — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 23(10) — Whether the Appellant showed the Director’s decision was wrong — Corroborated testimony and medical documentation preferred — Director’s determination of non-disability overturned on balance of probabilities — Decision of Director rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Medical review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date following disability determination — Consideration of age, treatment, therapy, and potential improvement — Review date of two years fixed — Income support to be paid if otherwise eligible, subject to review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1066", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1066 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-27", "docket_number": "2509-06144", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkb7", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP — Verification — Whether impairments, likely duration, and restrictions were verified by a prescribed professional under s. 4(1)(c) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Health Status Report completed by family physician of long standing — COPD, chronic bronchitis, PTSD, generalized anxiety verified as continuous or recurrent — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP — Substantial impairment — Whether the appellant had a substantial physical or mental impairment under s. 4(1)(a) — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied to flexible concept of substantiality — Cumulative impact of respiratory and mental health conditions accepted on totality of evidence — Severe and moderate IEWS ratings consistent with testimony — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP — Substantial restriction — Whether impairments caused substantial restrictions in community and workplace functioning under s. 4(1)(b) — ADL Index ratings and physician narratives corroborating limitations in mobility, stair climbing, cognitive activities, and social interaction — Inability to sustain employment due to anxiety and shortness of breath — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP — Review date — Whether to set a medical review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Consideration of age, ongoing treatment, medication management, and potential psychotherapy — Satisfaction that impairments may improve with treatment — Review date ordered for future reassessment — Appeal granted and review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1065", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1065 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-27", "docket_number": "2509-06040", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkb6", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant met both substantial impairment and substantial restriction at the time of the Director’s decision — Medical verification accepted but impairments not substantial individually or cumulatively — Restrictions evidence scant and inconsistent — Onus under s. 23(10) not discharged — Appeal denied, decision affirmed | Procedure — Extensions — Late appeal — Extension of time under s. 23(2) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Whether reasonable grounds and apparent grounds for an appeal shown — Delay within one year and efforts to continue established — Tribunal grants extension and hears appeal on the merits — Extension granted | Evidence — Medical records — IEWS and ADLI — Weight of IEWS and ADLI scores compared to the Appellant’s testimony — Inconsistencies between severe ratings and minimal treatment and daily activities — ADLI found unreliable and IEWS given less weight — Remaining evidence insufficient to prove substantial impairment or restrictions — Evidentiary weight adjusted, no substantial impairment found | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits — Definition of “substantial,” s. 4(1) — Application of Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Meaning of substantial given flexible, contextual interpretation — Three separate tests under s. 4(1) require both thresholds to be met — Appellant did not meet substantial impairment or restriction — Interpretation applied, appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1064", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1064 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-27", "docket_number": "2509-06038", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkb5", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Whether substantial impairments and substantial restrictions were established — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied to “substantial” and cumulative effects — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Tribunal satisfied impairments were continuous or recurrent — Appeal granted, person with a disability found | Evidence — Administrative tribunals — New medical evidence — Subsection 64(1) of the Act — Whether post‑decision reports must relate to the condition at the Director’s decision date — Omar and Jemiolo applied — Presumption that reports speak as of their date rebutted by explicit indications — New evidence considered as relating back — Evidence admitted and weighed | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Medical review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set where impairments may improve — Recent initiation of pain clinic treatment noted — Access to additional treatment through ODSP considered — Decision maker not satisfied impairments are unlikely to improve — Review date set for two years | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus — Section 23(10) of the Act — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Verified impairments and restrictions established on balance of probabilities — Totality of evidence accepted including HSR, IEWS, ADLI and testimony — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal allowed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1062", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1062 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-27", "docket_number": "2507-04504", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkk9t", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Definition under s. 4(1) — Is the Appellant a person with a disability within the meaning of s. 4(1)? — Gray v. Director and Crane applied to substantiality — Totality of medical evidence and testimony assessed — Director’s decision found wrong under s. 23(10) — Person with a disability established — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Were the impairment, duration and restrictions verified by a person with the prescribed qualifications under s. 4(1)(c)? — Health Status Report and Disability Determination Package reviewed — Physician’s narrative corroborated testimony — Verification continuous or recurrent and expected to last one year or more — Onus met under s. 23(10) — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Did substantial impairments result in a substantial restriction in the ability to function in a workplace? — Gallier considered on person‑specific context — ADLI severe limitations corroborated — Sedentary and physical employment unreasonable at the time of the Director’s decision — Substantial restriction in workplace function found — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Ontario Regulation 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set? — Further treatment may improve impairment — Decision maker not satisfied impairment is not likely to improve — Review date set for three years — Income support payable if otherwise eligible under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1061", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1061 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-27", "docket_number": "2503-02248R", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkk9n", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Statutory interpretation — ODSPA medical review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5 — Whether s. 5 requires a comparative improvement test rather than a new assessment — Language of “review date” and “improve” interpreted — Tribunal guided by s. 5(1) and s. 5(2) — Medical review requires assessing improvement from prior disability finding — Comparative test adopted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Verification — Whether impairments and restrictions were adequately verified under s. 4(1)(c) — Physician’s forms poorly completed yet conditions intertwined — Panic attacks, panic disorder and PTSD verified through medical notes and cross references — Entirety of evidence considered sufficient — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Substantial impairment and restriction — Whether mental impairments and cumulative effects meet s. 4(1)(a) and (b) — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Daily panic attacks, anxiety, flashbacks, fatigue, cognitive and emotional limitations — Substantial restriction in workplace function established — Person with a disability confirmed — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Evidence of ongoing psychotherapy and pharmacological treatment considered with age, education and work history — Anticipated improvement assessed — Review appropriate within statutory framework — Review date set two years from order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1060", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1060 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-26", "docket_number": "2509-06556", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkbw", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works overpayments — Assessment — Whether the decision to assess an overpayment was correct — Failure to properly declare self-employment income — Income received while in receipt of assistance — Legal obligation to report income to OW — Benefit unit received funds in excess of entitlement — Overpayment validly assessed | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works overpayments — Calculation — Whether the amount of the overpayment was correctly calculated — Banking records and OW file reviewed — No evidence of error in calculation — Appellant offered no contrary calculation — Amount for April to July 2025 confirmed — Calculation upheld | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works overpayments — Recovery — Whether recovery should be reduced due to financial hardship — Objectives in section 1 of the Ontario Works Act considered — Flexibility in collection per Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 — Some financial hardship found — Balance with accountability to taxpayers — Recoverable amount after date of order reduced to $0" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1058", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1058 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-26", "docket_number": "2510-06886", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkdl", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1)(a) and (b) at the date of decision — Guidance from Gray and Crane on “substantial” and separate tests — Whole person analysis applied — Substantial impairment not established — No need to consider restrictions where impairment not substantial — Appeal denied | Procedure — Onus and standard — Statutory appeals under ODSPA — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Balance of probabilities applied — Credible testimony but insufficient corroboration — Director’s decision affirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Evidence and verification — Medical evidence — Whether verified impairments and ADLI or IEWS ratings demonstrated substantial impairments and restrictions — HSR and ADLI completed by family physician — Mild ADLI limitations only, no moderate or severe IEWS scores — Limited proximate documentation and treatment notes — Evidence insufficient on balance of probabilities — Appeal dismissed | Pensions and social benefits — Treatment relevance — Assessment of substantial impairment — Whether treatment history proximate to the decision date supported substantiality — Jemiolo considered on treatment as relevant factor — Minimal ongoing therapy, cessation of medication, limited physician contact — Treatment level did not support substantial impairment — Finding of no substantial impairment affirmed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1057", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1057 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-26", "docket_number": "2510-06851", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkdj", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Recovery entitlement — Whether the Administrator was entitled to recover the overpayment under the Ontario Works Act and Ontario Regulation 134/98 — Assessment and calculation of overpayment confirmed — No administrative error alleged or found — Decision to collect the overpayment correct — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Discretion to restrict recovery — Whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to restrict the rate of recovery due to financial hardship — Evidence of reduced supports and limited income accepted — Balance between assistance and accountability considered — Rate of recovery adjusted in light of hardship — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Rate of recovery — What rate of recovery is appropriate in light of Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 and the objectives in s. 1 of the Ontario Works Act — Prescribed amount noted in s. 62(1) of Ontario Regulation 134/98 — Flexibility in collection applied — Recovery rate set at $10 per month for 12 months" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1056", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1056 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-26", "docket_number": "2510-06808", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkdd", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Social assistance — ODSP overpayments — Assessment and recovery — Whether ODSP overpayment properly assessed and reduction warranted — CPP‑D income and budgetary requirements considered under the Act and O Reg 222/98 — Tribunal’s discretion to recover all, part, or none per Surdivall — Administrative error and individual circumstances weighed — Appeal granted in part | Statutory interpretation — ODSP Act and O Reg 222/98 — Income definition and overpayment — Do CPP‑D benefits fall within income to be deducted? — Application of s. 37 and s. 14(1) — CPP‑D not exempted under ss. 38 to 43 — Overpayment validly assessed and inclusion dollar for dollar confirmed — Overpayment confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Calculation — Overpayment quantification — Was the overpayment amount correctly calculated for the relevant period? — Tribunal reviewed Director’s figures for December 2020 to May 2025 — No specific calculation error identified by Appellant — Framework of budgetary requirements minus income applied — Amount correctly determined — Calculation upheld | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery discretion — Collection of overpayment — Should recovery be reduced due to administrative error and hardship? — Surdivall affirms broad and flexible discretion to recover all, part, or none — Sixteen‑month failure to follow up found — Balance between accountability and benefit received — Reduction fixed at 50 percent — Recovery limited | Procedure — Appeals — Burden and standard — Under s. 23(10) of the Act must the Appellant show the Director’s decision was incorrect? — Balance of probabilities applied — Evidence reviewed including testimony and written submissions — Onus partly met regarding recovery discretion — Onus not met to displace assessment or calculation — Appeal granted in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1055", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1055 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-26", "docket_number": "2510-06781", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkdc", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability eligibility — Person with a disability under s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant met the definition at the time of the Director’s decision — Substantial impairments from generalized anxiety disorder, depression, and scoliosis found — Substantial restriction in capacity to function in a workplace established — Decision of Director rescinded — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Meaning of “substantial” — How should “substantial impairment” and “substantial restriction” in s. 4(1) be interpreted — Flexible, contextual approach applied per Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane — Separate tests under s. 4(1) analysed with permissible evidentiary overlap — Interpretation applied to Appellant’s circumstances — Definition satisfied | Evidence — Verification requirements — Medical and testimonial proof — Whether impairments, duration, and restrictions were verified under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report and Medical Conditions Questionnaire accepted — Family physician’s IEWS and ADLI entries persuasive — Consistent testimony regarding pain, anxiety, depression, and sleep disruption — Progressive pharmacotherapy and counselling considered — Verification satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for a person with a disability determination — Appellant young and engaged in treatment and assessment — Potential for improvement acknowledged — Review date set two years from the Order — Appeal granted and review scheduled" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1053", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1053 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-26", "docket_number": "2510-06763", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkd9", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant met the statutory definition at the date of the Director’s decision — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Onus under s. 23(10) met — Decision of the Director rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Treatment and barriers — Whether absence of extensive treatment precluded a finding of substantial impairment — Jemiolo considered on treatment as a relevant but non‑determinative factor — Homelessness and mental health symptoms found to impede treatment access — No adverse inference drawn regarding treatment — Person with a disability status confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Substantial restrictions — Whether substantial restrictions in activities of daily living were established — ADL Index and IEWS severe and moderate ratings persuasive — Gallier applied to assess restrictions in the Appellant’s own situation — Evidence of reliance on family and shelter supports accepted — Substantial restriction in community and workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP administration — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set given potential improvement — Willingness to engage in further treatment and imminent psychiatric involvement noted — Shorter review period appropriate pending specialist input — Review date set for one year" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1052", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1052 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-26", "docket_number": "2509-06712", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkd5", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) at the time of the Director’s decision — Substantial mental health impairments verified by physician — Dissociative symptoms, avoidant behaviour, anxiety, antisocial reactions — Substantial restriction in functioning in the community established — Gallier applied to consider the person in context — Appeal granted | Procedure — Adjournment — Failure to attend — Whether adjournment should be granted under s. 29(1)(b) of the ODSPA — Reasonable cause for failure to continue found — Significant likelihood of recurrence if adjourned — Director, ODSP v. Miller followed to proceed on documentary record — Appeal proceeded in Appellant’s absence — Adjournment denied | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Evidence leaves open possibility impairments and restrictions may change — Further treatment and medication may result in improvement — Decision maker not satisfied impairment is not likely to improve — Review date warranted — Review date set | Statutory interpretation — Social assistance — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial” impairment and “substantial restriction” — Gray and Crane considered — Flexible meaning tied to individual circumstances and purposes of the Act — Significant, not severe, barriers required — Overlap of evidence for impairment and restriction recognised — Broader definition applied to facts — Interpretation applied" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1050", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1050 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-26", "docket_number": "2509-06624", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkc7", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Administrative law — Jurisdiction — Internal review prerequisite — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, s. 22(1) — Whether the Tribunal can hear the suspension dispute without an internal review request — Evidence showed no internal review regarding the suspend decision — Tribunal finds it lacks the jurisdiction to render an order on the suspension — Suspension aspect not heard | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — ODSP — Whether the Director’s overpayment assessment for pension income was correct — Third‑party CRA records and Appellant’s records reviewed — Quantum and calculation technically correct — Overpayment amounts between October 2024 and January 2025 justified — Decision of the Director to assess an overpayment confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Hardship and recovery — Discretion to reduce overpayment and limit recovery — Court of Appeal decision in Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 considered — Whether collection in full would result in undue financial hardship — Overpayment reduced to $14,190 and recovery capped at $20 per month — Appeal granted in part | Administrative law — Timeliness of appeal — Tribunal procedures — Whether the Appellant’s appeal was filed late — Director varied initial decision and completed internal review subsequently — Tribunal persuaded the appeal was not late as the decision was not final until internal review — Appeal deemed timely and proceeds on overpayment issues" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1049", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1049 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-26", "docket_number": "2509-06565", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkbz", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Person with a disability — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” at the time of the Director’s decision — Chronic back pain, surgeries, functional limitations — Activities of daily living and workplace functioning assessed — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Evidence — Burden of proof — Medical and testimonial evidence — ODSPA appeal — Onus on Appellant under s. 23(10) to show Director was wrong — Health Status Report, ADLI, IEWS, specialist records, imaging — Credibility findings and consistency of oral and documentary evidence — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions established — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date given age, treatment, and potential improvement — Continuing access to employment supports noted — Determination that impairment may improve — Review date fixed — Appeal granted in part with review date set | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits — ODSPA definition — Interpretation of “substantial” in s. 4(1) — Gray v. Director, ODSP applied, flexible meaning tied to purpose — Crane v. Ontario confirms three separate tests and potential evidentiary overlap — Application to personal care, community, and workplace domains — Broader segment intended — Person with a disability found" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1048", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1048 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-26", "docket_number": "2509-06550", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkbv", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Validity and calculation — Whether the overpayment was validly assessed and correctly calculated — Onus under Ontario Disability Support Program Act, subs. 23(1), acknowledged — Appellants not disputing validity or calculation — Assessment confirmed in law — Overpayment amount varied on internal review — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Discretionary recovery — Should the Tribunal exercise its discretion to limit recovery of the overpayment — Flexibility in collection per Surdivall v. Ontario, 2014 ONCA 240 — Shared responsibility and administrative error considered — Recovery reduced by 50 percent to reflect circumstances — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Reporting obligations — Whether the non-reporting was deliberate or an innocent mistake affecting recovery — Language barriers and reliance on community worker accepted — Caseworker directed OAS application — Non-reporting not deliberate — Legislative duty to report under the Regulation recognised — Discretion exercised to limit recovery — Recovery reduced by 50 percent | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Financial hardship — Whether financial hardship justifies further reducing recovery — Income and expenses evidence assessed — Occasional assistance from adult children noted — Hardship not established to warrant additional restriction — Repayment plan to be arranged with ministry — Appeal granted in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1047", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1047 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-26", "docket_number": "2509-06468", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkbt", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Verification — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(c) — Were the appellant’s impairments and restrictions verified by a person with prescribed qualifications? — Diabetes, hypertension and hypercholesterolemia not considered for lack of duration verification — Health Status Report and narrative comments accepted for mood disorder and osteoarthritis — Onus under ODSPA s. 23(10) met in part — Unverified conditions disregarded | Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Substantial impairment — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(a) — Did the appellant have substantial impairments at the time of the Director’s decision? — IEWS severe and moderate ratings accepted — Narrative comments and examination findings persuasive — Gray and Crane applied to assess substantiality flexibly and cumulatively — Mood disorder and osteoarthritis found substantial — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(b) — Did impairments result in a substantial restriction in ability to function in the workplace? — IEWS severe ratings in attention, depressive mood and speech deficit — Narrative comments on poor concentration and memory — Gallier and Gray considered — Substantial workplace restriction found — Person with a disability determined | Pensions and social benefits — Reviews — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for the disability determination? — Counselling recommended and treatment not exhausted — Impairments may improve to a level no longer substantial — Decision maker satisfied a future review is appropriate — Review date set for three years — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1046", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1046 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-26", "docket_number": "2509-06245", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkbj", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Person with a disability — Did the Appellant meet the definition in s. 4(1) at the date of the Director’s decision? — Gray and Crane applied to “substantial” and three separate tests — Totality of evidence and personal context assessed — Tribunal satisfied Appellant is a person with a disability — Appeal granted | Evidence — Medical verification — Prescribed qualifications — Whether impairment, likely duration, and restriction were verified under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report completed by physician with prescribed qualifications accepted — IEWS and ADLI ratings considered — Pre‑ and post‑decision documents given limited weight yet corroborative — Verification established | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Did substantial impairments result in a substantial restriction in one or more activities of daily living? — Gallier emphasised assessment of this person’s situation — Testimony on personal care and social interactions accepted despite ADLI inconsistencies — Substantial restriction in any workplace found — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairment may improve? — Decision maker not satisfied impairment is not likely to improve — Age and continued efforts at treatment noted — Review date set for two years — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1045", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1045 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-26", "docket_number": "2509-06205", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkbd", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition, person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) at the date of the Director’s decision — Onus on Appellant under s. 23(10) — Director’s determination rescinded — Tribunal satisfied Appellant is a person with a disability — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairments and restrictions — Meaning of “substantial” under s. 4(1)(a)–(b) — Flexible assessment of whole person per Gray and Crane — Cumulative effect on personal care, community and workplace analysed — Pain and shortness of breath limiting function — Substantial impairment and workplace restriction found — Person with a disability confirmed | Evidence — Medical evidence — Verification and weight — Verification by a person with prescribed qualifications under s. 4(1)(c) — Inconsistent ADLI severe ratings given no weight — Reliance on clinical notes, imaging, specialist referrals and credible testimony — Cane use noted — Verification accepted and probative value assigned to narratives — Decision of Director set aside | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date where impairment may improve — Additional treatment since Director’s decision could lessen substantiality — Decision maker satisfied a review date is appropriate — Review scheduled two years from order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1043", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1043 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-26", "docket_number": "2509-06037", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkb4", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) ODSPA at the time of the Director’s decision — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied to “substantial” impairment — Verified impairments and likely duration established by Health Status Report — Onus under s. 23(10) satisfied — Appeal granted | Procedure — Social benefits appeals — Late evidence — Admission of late medical evidence under O. Reg. 222/98, ss. 64 and 65 — Whether admitting an MRI while excluding other documents preserved procedural fairness — Tribunal discretion to accept evidence exercised — Cross‑examination on MRI possible — Chiropractic letter and medication list excluded — Hearing proceeded without adjournment | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Whether substantial impairments resulted in substantial restriction in the workplace under s. 4(1)(b) — Evidence from HSR and testimony on lifting, standing, driving, meal preparation — Gallier considered on individual context — Sedentary employment and retraining unreasonable — Substantial restriction in workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Review date — Whether a review date should be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Potential for improvement with additional treatment such as physiotherapy — Determination that impairments may improve — Review date set two years from Order — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1042", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1042 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-26", "docket_number": "2506-04323", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkk9s", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether impairments and restrictions were verified and expected to last one year or more — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1)(a)-(c) — Health Status Report indicating duration less than one year — No verification by person with prescribed qualifications — Crane applied, substantiality not reached — Appeal dismissed | Procedure — Administrative tribunals — Adjournments — Whether the Tribunal could adjourn to obtain further medical reports — O.Reg. 64(3) prevents adjourning to fill evidentiary gaps — Oral testimony insufficient to verify impairments — Hearing proceeded on existing record — Adjournment refused | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus — Whether the Appellant satisfied the onus to show the Director’s decision was wrong — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 23(10) — Limited medical documentary evidence and unverified duration — Sandiford considered on statutory test — Director’s decision affirmed — Appeal denied" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1041", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1041 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-25", "docket_number": "2509-06693", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkcx", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — Whether substantial impairment and substantial restriction established under s. 4(1) — Verification under s. 4(1)(c) by person with prescribed qualifications — Guidance in Gray and Crane applied — Gallier considered for contextual assessment — Onus under s. 23(10) discharged — Appeal granted | Procedure — Tribunal process — Late evidence — Natural justice and O. Reg. 222/98, ss. 64 and 65 — Whether to accept additional Form 5 submitted post-hearing — Adequate notice and prejudice to the Director assessed — s. 64(3) constraint on adjournments noted — Tribunal refused to receive new medical evidence — Evidence refused | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP administration — Review date — Whether to set a review date under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Appellant’s age, chronicity of symptoms, lack of treatment likely to improve impairments considered — Satisfied impairment not likely to improve — Review date not set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1040", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1040 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-25", "docket_number": "2509-06688", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkct", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Definition, person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Were the Appellant’s impairments and restrictions substantial — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Verification by person with prescribed qualifications established — Ischemic heart disease, fatigue, mobility limits, workplace functioning restricted — Onus under s. 23(10) met — Person with a disability found — Appeal granted | Procedure — Appeals — Extension of time — Late appeal under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 61(1) — Should an extension be granted under ODSPA s. 23(2) — Intention to continue and efforts to do so found — Director not opposing delay — Reasonable grounds and apparent grounds established — Extension to file appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Impairments not likely to improve — Age and unlikely employment considered — No review of the determination ordered — Review date not set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1039", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1039 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-25", "docket_number": "2509-06668", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkcp", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability eligibility — Medical review — Whether the Appellant remains a person with a disability under ODSPA s. 4(1) — Comparison of impairments and restrictions at medical review with initial grant — Medical and oral evidence did not show substantial impairments — No clinically significant improvement required to revisit original finding — Appeal denied | Statutory interpretation — ODSPA and O Reg 222/98 — Medical review — Whether s. 5(2) supports a comparative test — Wording “no longer a person with a disability” interpreted as requiring comparison to initial grant — Two-step analysis applied at review, not a full re-examination absent material improvement — Director’s decision affirmed | Evidence — Medical records — Verification and scope — Whether Form 5 impairments were properly verified and within scope despite missing signature — Depression and anxiety with lack of energy, depressive mood, lack of interest accepted — Historical records given little weight, pharmaceutical records not reflective of review date — Onus under s. 23(10) not met — Appeal dismissed | Pensions and social benefits — Disability eligibility — Thresholds — Whether restrictions analysis required if substantial impairment not met — Both impairment and restriction thresholds must be satisfied for s. 4(1) — Tribunal declined to assess activities of daily living where substantial impairment was not established, citing Crane v. Ontario — Director’s decision affirmed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1036", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1036 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-25", "docket_number": "2509-06610", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkc2", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — ODSP and CPPD income — Was the Director’s overpayment assessment technically incorrect — CPPD approved retroactive to May 2020 and not reported — Grant letter outlined duty to report income — Evidence of notice to home address accepted — Overpayment covering July 2020 to April 2025 — Director’s decision technically not incorrect — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Collection and recovery — Discretion to deem overpayment uncollectable — Should part of the overpayment be declared uncollectable due to shared responsibility — Limited communication by ODSP given hospitalization and lack of direct contact — Appellant’s assumptions about monitoring and benefit conflict unpersuasive — Both parties bear responsibility — 50% of the overpayment uncollectable | Pensions and social benefits — Hardship — Relief from ongoing recovery — Are there sufficient factors to reduce or suspend recovery — Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 considered — Limited income alone insufficient — Reported income and expenses suggest a modest surplus — No exceptional circumstances established — Relief from ongoing recovery denied" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1033", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1033 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-25", "docket_number": "2509-06356", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkbl", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction under s. 4(1) — Guidance from Gray v. Director and Crane applied — Whether cumulative effect of impairments limited activities of daily living at the time of the Director’s decision — More likely than not — Person with a disability found — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification requirements — Prescribed qualifications — Whether unverified impairments and restrictions can be considered under s. 4(1)(c) — No evidence from a person with the prescribed qualifications regarding Lichen Planus or Polyps — Verification requirements not met — All evidence regarding those conditions disregarded — Verified impairments considered only — Unverified impairments disregarded | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Satisfied that impairments are not likely to improve — Physician opined back pain would likely deteriorate — Tribunal also considered age — Determination that no review is appropriate — No review date set | Pensions and social benefits — Onus and proof — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Sworn testimony consistent with medical documentation — Jemiolo considered on treatment as a relevant consideration — Whole person analysis applied — Decision of the Director rescinded — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1030", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1030 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-25", "docket_number": "2509-06259", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkbk", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — CPP-D treated as income — Whether the Director’s decision to assess an overpayment for CPP income was correct — Regulation 222/98, ss. 29(1), 37(1) applied — Evidence from Service Canada and CRA records accepted — Funds received in excess of entitlement — Overpayment validly assessed | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Calculation — Was the amount of the overpayment correctly calculated? — No exemption applicable to CPP income — Affidavit confirming CPP-D receipt considered — No evidence of error in calculation found — Amount of overpayment correctly calculated | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery — Discretion — Should recovery be limited or refused given administrative error and impracticality of recovery? — Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 considered — Lack of timely file reviews found — Nominal estate and limited means to repay — Non-recovery order granted | Administrative law — Jurisdiction — Authority of Tribunal — Does s. 29(3) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act bar a recovery decision the Director could not make? — Statutory preconditions for appeal met — Authority to consider recovery confirmed despite Appellant’s death — Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide recovery affirmed — Appeal granted in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1029", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1029 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-25", "docket_number": "2510-06736", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkd7", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility — Whether the Director erred in determining no substantial impairments or restrictions — Application of s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Credible testimony and psychological assessment accepted — Person with a disability status confirmed — Decision rescinded and income support ordered — Review date set — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Definition — Person with a disability — Is the appellant a person with a disability within s. 4(1)? — Gray v. Director, Ontario Disability Support Program and Crane v. Ontario applied — Flexible meaning of substantial impairment considered — Cumulative effect of intellectual disability, social phobia and chronic tooth pain found substantial — Person with a disability confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Medical evidence — Were impairments, duration and restrictions verified under s. 4(1)(c)? — Health Status Report completed by clinical psychologist — Continuous or recurrent conditions expected to last one year or more — Licensed mental health specialist’s findings given significant weight — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Do substantial impairments result in substantial restriction in workplace functioning? — Gallier considered on person‑specific context — Severe anxiety exacerbated by chronic dental pain — Functional illiteracy and global cognitive deficits impair occupational capacity — Substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set given potential improvement after dental procedures? — Aspiration to return to seasonal work after dental operation noted — Lengthy waitlist for surgery considered — Longer review period warranted — Review date set for three years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1028", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1028 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-25", "docket_number": "2508-05390", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkk9z", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the appellant meets s. 4(1) criteria of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Medical verification through HSR, IEWS and ADLI considered — Director’s decision found wrong under s. 23(10) — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Substantial impairments and restrictions — Are the impairments and resulting restrictions “substantial” under s. 4(1)(a) and (b) — Alcohol dependence and mood disorder causing cognitive and functional impacts — Gallier considered on assessing restrictions in personal context — Workplace function substantially restricted — Cumulative effect established — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP administration — Review of eligibility — Should a review date be set under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Improvement likely given treatment adherence and age — Ongoing rehabilitation and recovery services noted — Review date fixed to reassess disability status — Review date set for two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1027", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1027 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-25", "docket_number": "2509-06015", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkb3", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Shelter allowance — Whether the revised overpayment of $1,349.00 for shelter allowance from October 2022 to June 2025 was correct — Failure to provide sufficient calculations to show entitlement and amounts paid — Director’s figures lacked breakdown of maximum shelter and payments — Appeal granted in part — Overpayment decision found incorrect | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery and collection — Overpayments — Is the overpayment recoverable given acknowledged administrative error and insufficient calculations? — Director did not provide sufficient evidence to support recovery — Any recovered amounts shall be returned to the Appellant — Overpayment not recoverable | Pensions and social benefits — Arrears and underpayments — Underpayment claim — Is the Appellant owed $3,423.00 identified by the Director? — Amount represented correction of shelter entry error for earlier months — Internal Review reduced overpayment months and amount proportionately — Order for arrears refused | Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Reasons and notice — Did the Director provide sufficient reasons and calculations for the overpayment decision under ODSP Regulation 222, s. 56? — Failure to show work and effective explanation of variations — Procedurally unfair and limits review of accuracy — Appeal granted in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1026", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1026 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-25", "docket_number": "2507-05245", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkk9w", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — CPPS income — Whether the Director correctly assessed overpayment and deduction based on CPPS — Gross versus net CPPS amounts considered — T4A(P) Statement of Canada Pension Plan Benefits and Service Canada printout preferred — Third-party report rejected — Decisions of May 13, 2025 rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayment — ODSP — Whether the May 13, 2025 decision to assess an overpayment of $349.04 was correct — T4A(P) identifying $4,189.32 in taxable CPP benefits accepted — Monthly CPPS amount found to be $349.11 gross and net — Third-party CPPS figure of $436.37 not established — Overpayment rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Entitlement — Benefit calculation — Whether ODSP entitlement should be reduced by $436.37 or $349.11 — Appellant receiving $349.11 in CPPS with no deductions — Social assistance system “CPP Entitlement Amount” of $436.37 not supported — ODSP reduction confirmed only at $349.11 per month — Increased reduction rescinded" ] }, { "case_id": "2026canlii36748", "citation": "2026 CanLII 36748 (ON SBT)", "decision_date": "2026-03-25", "docket_number": "2506-04261", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkk9r", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Administrative law — Notice of decision — Ontario Works overpayments — Subsections 67(1) and 67(2) of Ontario Regulation 134/98 — Whether notice of two historical overpayment decisions was delivered with required content — Absence of decision letters and confirmation none was sent — Adequate notice not provided — Resulting impact on ability to appeal — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works — Overpayments — Internal review — Whether the total overpayment confirmed at $5,730.18 was correctly calculated — Discrepancies between internal review total, submissions total, and attached letters — Minimal evidence of recovery to date — Tribunal unable to ascertain correct balance — Decision confirming overpayment incorrect — Decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Collection and recovery — Overpayments — Subsection 28(11) of the Ontario Works Act, Ontario Regulation 134/98 — Whether overpayment is recoverable given notice and calculation issues — Reference to Surdivall v. Ontario regarding flexibility in collection — Legislative objectives and administrative error considered — Overpayment not recoverable | Administrative law — Tribunal jurisdiction — Human Rights Code Form 4 claims — Whether the Tribunal could determine the Appellant’s Human Rights Code claims within this appeal — Jurisdiction limited to the Administrator’s decision before it — No legislative authority to issue supplemental directions or damages — Human Rights Code remedy not determined" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt991", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 991 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-24", "docket_number": "2509-06562", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk67t", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) at the time of the Director’s decision — Guidance from Gray, Crane applied — Medical verification, duration and restrictions assessed — Tribunal satisfied criteria in s. 4(1)(a) to (c) met — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial impairment — Were the Appellant’s impairments cumulatively substantial under s. 4(1)(a) — Gray v. ODSP and Crane considered — Evidence of depressive and anxiety disorders and fibromyalgia — Treatment including hospitalization and medications weighed — Totality of evidence accepted — Substantial impairments found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial restriction — Did impairments substantially restrict function in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier principle applied to Appellant’s situation — Remote flexible work contrasted with full‑time set hours — Past dysfunction and medical leaves noted — Substantial workplace restriction established | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Verification — Verification by person with prescribed qualifications under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report and medical chart by family physician accepted — Impairments, likely duration and restrictions properly verified — Overlap of evidence for paras. (a) and (b) acknowledged per Crane — Verification requirement satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Younger Appellant and ongoing treatment efforts considered — Impairments not fixed as non‑improving — Review date appropriate — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible — Review scheduled for two years — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt990", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 990 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-24", "docket_number": "2509-06555", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk67s", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) definition applied — Did the Appellant meet the statutory criteria at the time of the Director’s decision? — Continuous or recurrent impairments verified by a prescribed professional — Direct and cumulative effect causing substantial restriction in workplace functioning — Tribunal satisfied Appellant is a person with a disability — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment and restrictions — Activities of daily living — Meaning of “substantial” considered in light of Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Were substantial impairments shown to result in substantial restrictions in workplace functioning? — IEWS and ADLI ratings, treatment and testimony weighed cumulatively — Substantial impairments and restrictions established — Person with a disability status recognised | Pensions and social benefits — Burden of proof — Onus on appeal — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Did the Appellant satisfy the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong? — Medical documentation, specialist reports and credible testimony accepted — Director’s assessment of impairments and restrictions rejected — Decision of Director rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Reassessment date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairments may improve? — Age, potential for future treatment and improvement considered — Determination that impairments not permanent — Review date fixed at three years — Review date ordered" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt986", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 986 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-24", "docket_number": "2509-06523", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk67m", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Assessment and calculation — Was the overpayment correctly calculated under Ontario Regulation 222/98, ss. 29(1), 37(1)? — ODSP Act, s. 23(10) onus not met — Income from self-employment and federal benefits counted — Student status exemption narrowed to actual enrolment — Overpayment validly assessed and amount correct — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery and collection — Discretion to limit recovery — Do administrative error and hardship justify reducing recovery? — Surdivall v. Ontario applied to flexibility in collection — No enormous financial hardship established — Failure to conduct regular file reviews and CRA checks found — Administrative error justifies reduction — Recovery reduced to $25,000 — Appeal granted in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt985", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 985 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-24", "docket_number": "2509-06508", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk67k", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Assessment — Was the decision to assess an overpayment under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act correct — Subsection 23(10) burden on Appellant — Long term disability benefits treated as income under O. Reg. 222/98 — ODSP does not treat long term disability income as employment income — Overpayment assessment upheld — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Calculation — Was the revised overpayment amount correctly calculated under O. Reg. 222/98 — Subsections 29(1) and 37(1) applied to budgetary requirements and income — Overpayment breakdown appendix accepted — No evidence of error in calculation — Amount of overpayment confirmed — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Recovery and discretion — Should recovery be reduced given administrative error and financial hardship — Surdivall v. Ontario cited on flexibility in collection — Administrative error by local ODSP office and innocent mistake found — Small element of financial hardship established — Balancing support and accountability to taxpayers — Recovery reduced to $2000 — Appeal granted in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt982", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 982 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-24", "docket_number": "2509-06458", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk67f", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Disability status — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” within ODSPA s. 4(1) — Onus under s. 23(10) to show the Director’s decision was wrong, verification by a person with prescribed qualifications satisfied — Director’s decision rescinded, income support payable in accordance with O. Reg. 222/98 s. 17 — Appeal granted | Procedure — Adjournment — Tribunal hearing management — Whether to adjourn to obtain representation or further medical documents — Exceptional circumstances not established, prior request denied, sufficient time to retain counsel — O. Reg. 222/98 s. 64(3) precludes adjournment to obtain further medical documents — Adjournment refused | Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Substantial impairments and restrictions — Were the Appellant’s impairments and resulting restrictions “substantial” at the time of the Director’s decision? — Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane applied, cumulative lens, HSR, ADLI, MRI and consistent testimony considered — Substantial restriction in workplace found, personal care and community function assessed — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98 s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where treatment may improve impairments? — Decision maker not satisfied impairment is not likely to improve, treatment plan and potential surgery noted — Review period fixed from the date of the Order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt975", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 975 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-24", "docket_number": "2509-06381", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk671", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — Whether the Appellant met subsection 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Meaning of “substantial” impairment considered with Gray and Crane — Medical verification and duration established — Director’s conclusion that impairments were not substantial rejected — Appeal granted | Procedure — Administrative tribunals — Onus — Subsection 23(10) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Burden of proof applied to medical and testimonial record — Evidence accepted despite some reliability concerns — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Whether substantial restrictions in one or more activities of daily living were proven — Gallier considered on contextual assessment — Restrictions in holding, carrying, lifting, typing and sleep disturbance accepted — Physician’s ADLI ratings and narrative corroborated — Income support to be paid if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Medical review date — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Potential for lessening of impairments with further treatment noted — Determination that impairment not permanent — Review date scheduled one year from the Order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt967", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 967 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-24", "docket_number": "2509-06280", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk66m", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — ODSPA s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant meets the definition of “person with a disability” — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Totality of medical evidence and testimony considered — Substantiality interpreted flexibly and contextually — Director’s decision found wrong under s. 23(10) — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — ODSPA s. 4(1)(c) — Were impairment, duration, and restrictions verified by a person with prescribed qualifications? — Health Status Report completed by longstanding physician accepted — Diagnostic imaging and medication regimen corroborative — Verification linked to time of Director’s decision — Verification requirements satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Do substantial impairments cause substantial restriction in activities of daily living? — Gallier considered on individualised assessment — Restrictions in ADLI rated severe or moderate across domains — Pain limiting sitting, standing, walking, lifting — Substantial restriction in workplace function found | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for disability status? — Decision maker may set review unless impairment not likely to improve — Evidence of potential improvement with time and treatment — Review period fixed — Review date set for two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt963", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 963 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-24", "docket_number": "2509-06224", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk66g", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Three-part test applied under s. 4(1)(a) to (c) — Verification by psychiatrist accepted — Onus under s. 23(10) met on balance of probabilities — Director’s decision found wrong — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial impairments — Do Mental Health Conditions amount to substantial impairments under s. 4(1)(a) — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied to “substantial” — Psychiatric IEWS ratings severe, PHQ-9 and GAD-7 severe — Treatment efforts considered per Jemiolo — Totality of evidence supports substantiality — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial restrictions — Whether impairments cause substantial restrictions in workplace function under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier principle to assess Appellant in own situation — ADLI moderate ratings corroborated — Evidence of depressive episodes, time management and task completion difficulties — Accommodation needs identified — Substantial restriction in workplace established | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Ongoing depressive episodes and medication adjustments noted — Improvement possible with continued treatment — Decision maker not satisfied impairment unlikely to improve — Review date set for two years — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt950", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 950 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-24", "docket_number": "2509-06017", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk661", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — Does the Appellant meet s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 at the date of decision? — Onus under s. 23(10) addressed — Thresholds of substantial impairment and substantial restriction both required — Decision of the Director rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Verification — Were impairment, duration, and restrictions verified by a person with prescribed qualifications under s. 4(1)(c)? — Health Status Report completed by family physician — IEWS and ADLI submitted with the DDP — Medical evidence accepted as continuous or recurrent and expected to last one year or more — Verification satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Substantial impairment — Whether impairments were “substantial” under s. 4(1)(a) — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — IEWS severe ratings for attention, concentration, energy, executive function, learning — Testimony congruent with medical evidence — Substantial impairment established | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Substantial restriction and review — Whether direct and cumulative effect caused substantial restrictions in activities of daily living under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier considered on contextual assessment — ADLI severe ratings across multiple domains — Workplace function substantially restricted — Review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) set — Substantial restrictions found, review date set two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt946", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 946 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-24", "docket_number": "2508-06020", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk65w", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Statutory definition — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Is the Appellant a “person with a disability” under s. 4(1)? — Director’s decision that impairments and restrictions were not substantial challenged — Tribunal satisfied criteria in paras. (a) to (c) met — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability adjudication — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions — Meaning of “substantial” applied per Gray and Crane — Whether evidence at the time of the Director’s decision established substantial impairment and restriction — IEWS and ADLI ratings, assistive devices, consistent testimony accepted — Function in community and workplace substantially restricted — Substantial impairments and restrictions found | Pensions and social benefits — Review of disability status — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for the determination? — Given the Appellant’s age and likely course of impairments, improvement unlikely — Tribunal declines to set a review date — No review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt929", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 929 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-24", "docket_number": "2505-03349", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk65b", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of disability, s. 4(1) — Whether the appellant is a person with a disability — Meaning of substantial impairment and substantial restriction — Application of Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario to medical and functional evidence — Conservative treatment and activity level considered — Appeal denied | Procedure — Administrative tribunals — Onus of proof — Statutory burden under ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Whether the appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Balance of probabilities applied to cumulative impairments — Insufficient persuasive evidence to displace Director’s determination — Decision of Director affirmed | Evidence — Administrative tribunals — Credibility and weight — Conflicts between oral testimony and medical records — Whether medical documentation outweighs inconsistent testimony on severity — Limited clinical observations, static treatment and normal imaging — Interpreter-assisted testimony found unreliable — Greater weight ascribed to documentary evidence — No substantial impairment established | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits — Structure of s. 4(1) ODSPA — Whether it was necessary to assess restrictions after finding no substantial impairment — Three separate tests requiring separate answers per Crane — Failure on impairment threshold ends analysis — No assessment of activities of daily living required — Appeal dismissed and Director’s decision upheld" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt923", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 923 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-24", "docket_number": "2503-01888", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk654", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets subsection 4(1) ODSPA — Impairments verified by prescribed qualifications — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions assessed — Tribunal satisfied impairment and duration verified — Director’s decision rescinded — Income support to be paid if otherwise eligible under O. Reg. 222/98 s. 17 — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Statutory definition — Person with a disability — Does the Appellant meet ODSPA s. 4(1)? — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Flexible meaning of substantial tied to individual circumstances — Three separate tests requiring separate analysis — Tribunal finds s. 4(1) requirements met on totality of evidence — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability adjudication — Substantial impairments and restrictions — Do mental health impairments cumulatively cause substantial workplace restriction? — Psychiatrist-verified HSR, severe and moderate IEWS and ADLI ratings — Testimony consistent and reliable — Gallier considered on individualised assessment — Substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace found — Person with a disability confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Burden of proof — Tribunal proceedings — Onus on Appellant under ODSPA s. 23(10) to show Director was wrong — Evidence included HSR, DDP, psychiatrist notes, medications, treatment — Totality of evidence weighed on balance of probabilities — Onus satisfied — Director’s decision set aside | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — Ontario Regulation 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for the determination? — Ongoing treatment and age considered — Impairment not shown unlikely to improve — Review date appropriate in the circumstances — Review date set for four years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt919", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 919 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-24", "docket_number": "2510-06730", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk688", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant met the statutory tests of substantial impairment and substantial restriction — ADHD, depression, generalized anxiety disorder, learning disability found substantial — Community functioning substantially restricted — Director’s decision wrong under s. 23(10) — Appeal granted | Evidence — Administrative tribunals — Medical and testimonial evidence — Health Status Report, IEWS, ADLI — How to weigh physician verification and symptom ratings against testimony — Credibility accepted, ADLI ratings not considered in isolation — Totality of evidence supports substantial impairments and substantial community restriction — Medical and lay evidence aligned — Findings of substantiality confirmed | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial” and structure of the three-part test — Application of Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Flexible, contextual approach tied to purposes of the Act — Overlap of evidence for paras. (a) and (b) recognised — Substantiality established | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set where impairments may improve with consistent treatment — Medication helped but inconsistent due to cost — Reasonable possibility of improvement identified — Review date set for two years — Benefits otherwise payable — Review ordered" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1019", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1019 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-24", "docket_number": "2509-06701", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkd0", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — CPP-D income — ODSP eligibility — Whether the Director correctly assessed and calculated an overpayment arising from undeclared CPP-D income — Calculation using Service Canada Payment Statement accepted — Undeclared income deductible from income support under the Regulation — Assessment and calculation found correct — Appeal granted in part as to recovery only — Overpayment assessment confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery of overpayments — Discretion — Whether recovery should be restricted based on administrative error and financial hardship — Subsection 12(1) of the Regulation, reporting obligation — Section 1 of the Act, objectives balanced — Surdivall v. Ontario referenced on flexibility in collection — Lack of file reviews found administrative error — Recovery reduced by 50 percent — Appeal granted in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1017", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1017 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-24", "docket_number": "2509-06692", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkcw", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of “person with a disability” — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(a) substantial impairment — Whether low back pain was substantial at the time of the Director’s decision — Medical imaging and clinical findings considered with testimony — Flexible approach from Gray and Crane applied — Threshold of substantiality met, narrowly — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(b) substantial restriction — Did low back pain substantially restrict the Appellant’s ability to function in the workplace? — Evidence of limits in sitting, walking, bending, lifting — ADLI ratings and personal circumstances considered — Substantial restriction in workplace functioning established — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review of disability status — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairment level is not fixed or settled? — Conservative treatment and largely mild imaging findings noted — Realistic possibility of material change found — Review date set for one year — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1014", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1014 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-24", "docket_number": "2509-06684", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkcr", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the appellant meets s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Definition applied to continuous or recurrent impairments and restrictions — Onus under s. 23(10) to show Director was wrong — Tribunal satisfied appellant is a person with a disability — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment and restriction — Activities of daily living — How “substantial” is assessed under s. 4(1) — Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario cited — Cumulative effect of PTSD and post‑concussion syndrome considered — Workplace function substantially restricted — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions found | Evidence — Medical evidence — Weight and verification — What weight to give physician and psychiatrists’ reports and indices — Verification under s. 4(1)(c) accepted, IEWS and ADLI endorsed — Limited treatment and non‑adherence contextualised by poor judgement, insight and memory — Greater weight to longitudinal physician and psychiatric assessments — Director’s concerns not adopted | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanism — Review date — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Decision maker may set date unless impairment not likely to improve — Age and potential adherence to recommended treatment considered — Review date set for one year — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1002", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1002 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-24", "docket_number": "2509-06614", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkc5", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA, person with a disability — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction — ODSPA, s. 4(1), definition applied — Guidance from Gray and Crane on substantiality — Individualised assessment per Gallier — ADLI ratings and physician narrative support restrictions — Whether impairments and restrictions met statutory thresholds — Tribunal satisfied restrictions in workplace function established — Appeal granted | Procedure — Tribunal discretion — Late medical evidence — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 65 discretion to admit evidence — Whether admitting late medical evidence would prejudice the Director — Director received and adjudicated evidence before hearing — Weight tied to proximity and relevance to decision date — Evidence pertaining to verified impairments considered — Late medical evidence admitted | Procedure — Burden of proof — Onus — ODSPA, s. 23(10) onus on Appellant to show Director wrong — Whether the evidentiary record met the balance of probabilities — Medical documentation and ADLI ratings preferred over unreliable testimony — Totality of evidence supports substantial impairment and restriction — Onus discharged | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA reviews — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1), review unless impairment not likely to improve — Whether impairments likely to improve given treatment plateau and age — Physician opines deterioration or status quo, maximal medical improvement reached — Determination of disability made with no further review — No review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1001", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1001 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-24", "docket_number": "2509-06613", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkc4", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Definition of disability — ODSPA eligibility — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” under s. 4(1) — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions assessed cumulatively — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied to “substantial” — Workplace functioning substantially restricted by psychological impairments — Tribunal accepts Appellant’s credible testimony and medical evidence — Appeal allowed and income support ordered | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Whether impairments, likely duration, and restrictions were verified under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report completed by a psychologist with prescribed qualifications — IEWS and ADLI relied on to confirm verified impairments and restrictions — Weight given to psychological assessment notwithstanding discomfort — Verification requirement satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — Burden of proof — Appellate onus — Whether the Appellant met the onus under s. 23(10) to show the Director was wrong — Totality of evidence supports substantial impairments and substantial restrictions — No negative inference from treatment barriers per Jemiolo — Director’s decision not supported on balance — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Reassessment — Whether a review date should be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Possibility of improvement with time and further treatments considered — Decision maker not satisfied impairments are unlikely to improve — One‑year review date fixed — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1000", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1000 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-24", "docket_number": "2509-06612", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk685", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — Whether the Appellant meets ODSPA s. 4(1) — Substantial physical or mental impairment established — Verification by a person with prescribed qualifications satisfied — Gray v. Director and Crane applied to substantiality — Medical and testimonial evidence weighed — Person with a disability found — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Whether substantial restrictions under s. 4(1)(b) are proven — Direct and cumulative effect on functioning assessed — Gallier considered on individualised assessment — Light duties, limited hours, staged tasks, recovery periods — Anxiety around people and PTSD affecting work — Substantial workplace restriction found — Decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — Whether a review date should be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Evidence does not show fixed or settled level of impairment — Potential for change with treatment and investigation — Review date appropriate — Review scheduled three years from order — Appeal allowed in part with review condition set | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Burden of proof — Whether the Appellant met the onus under ODSPA s. 23(10) — Tribunal satisfied Director’s decision was wrong — Health Status Report, specialist records, pharmacy records corroborate impairments — Credible testimony supports substantial impairments and restrictions — Onus discharged on balance of probabilities — Income support payable if otherwise eligible" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt993", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 993 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-23", "docket_number": "2509-06575", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk67w", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Did the Appellant meet the statutory definition at the date of the Director’s decision? — Guidance applied from Gray and Crane on substantial impairment and flexible substantiality — Credible testimony and medical evidence accepted — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1)(c) — Was verification of impairments, duration and restrictions by a prescribed professional established? — Requirement mandatory per Director v. Cumming, scope clarified in Sandiford — Nurse practitioner’s HSR, ADL Index and supplementary certificate accepted as proper verification — Verification established | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1)(b) — Do cumulative impairments result in a substantial restriction in workplace functioning? — Contextual approach from Gallier — IEWS and ADL ratings weighed against testimony — Inability to maintain regular attendance and performance found — Substantial restriction in workplace functioning established | Pensions and social benefits — Medical review — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a medical review date be set and when? — Decision maker satisfied impairment may improve with treatment — Appellant relatively young and showing some improvement — Balanced against continuing limitations — Medical review date set two years from order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt992", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 992 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-23", "docket_number": "2509-06574", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk67v", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Did the Appellant meet s. 4(1) at the date of the Director’s decision? — Guidance in Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Director, ODSP — Totality of evidence approach — Cumulative impairments ADHD, borderline personality disorder, PTSD found substantial — Appeal granted — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Medical verification — Prescribed professional — Is s. 4(1)(c) verification established? — Requirement mandatory per Director, ODSP v. Cumming — Scope of verification clarified in Sandiford v. Director, ODSP — Family doctor with prescribed qualifications completed HSR and supplementary certificate — Impairments, duration and restrictions verified — Verification satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Whether substantial restrictions established under s. 4(1)(b) — Individualised assessment per Director, ODSP v. Gallier — ADL Index and IEWS show significant limitations — Inability to meet ordinary attendance and performance expectations — Substantial restriction in workplace function found — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Medical review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set and when? — Decision maker not satisfied impairments are unlikely to improve — Young appellant pursuing treatment with potential for improvement — Review date fixed four years from order — Review date set four years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt971", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 971 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-23", "docket_number": "2509-06354", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk66w", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether Appellant met s. 4(1) definition at the time of the Director’s decision — Continuous or recurrent impairments accepted — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction thresholds not met — Activities of daily living domains considered — Cumulative effects assessed and rejected — Appeal denied | Statutory interpretation — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Meaning of substantial — How should “substantial” in s. 4(1)(a) be interpreted — Gray v. Director and Crane applied — Three separate tests requiring separate answers — Flexible, purposive reading consistent with the Act — Both substantial thresholds required — Director’s decision affirmed | Evidence — Medical evidence — Verification and onus — Was there verified evidence of substantial impairments and restrictions — Physician Health Status Report and new records reviewed — Onus under s. 23(10) not met — Postoperative improvement and medication discontinuation noted — Unverified mental health allegations given little weight — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt965", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 965 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-23", "docket_number": "2509-06260", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk66j", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Person with a disability — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability at the time of the Director’s decision — Onus under s. 23(10) considered — Tribunal prefers sworn testimony and medical evidence — Appeal granted and disability status recognised | Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Verification — Verification of impairments, duration and restrictions under s. 4(1)(c) — Whether physician verification on the Health Status Report and Activities of Daily Living Index sufficed — Certain conditions not relied on — Verified impairments and restrictions accepted — Eligibility confirmed on the record | Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Substantial restriction — Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane applied to “substantial” — Whether substantial impairments result in substantial restrictions in workplace and community — Gallier emphasising assessment in the Appellant’s own situation — Appellant’s credible testimony and IEWS support substantial restriction — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Administration — Review dates — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date for a disability determination — Appellant’s age and recent efforts to seek treatment considered — Impairments not fixed as non-improving — Review date set for two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt956", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 956 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-23", "docket_number": "2509-06141", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk667", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met the statutory definition at the time of the Director’s decision — Substantial physical or mental impairment, continuous or recurrent, expected to last one year or more — Guidance in Gray and Crane applied — Onus under s. 23(10) satisfied — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(c) — Verification by prescribed qualifications — Were the impairments, likely duration, and restrictions properly verified? — Health Status Report completed by psychiatrist with prescribed qualifications — Pharmacotherapy and clinical records corroborative — Verification requirements met — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(b) — Activities of daily living — Do the cumulative effects of impairments cause substantial restrictions in community, workplace, or personal care? — ADLI and IEWS ratings consistent with testimony — Gallier considered on contextual assessment — Substantial restriction in workplace function found — Appellant determined to be a person with a disability | Pensions and social benefits — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Review date — Should a review date be set where impairment may improve? — Consideration of age, treatment, and potential for improvement — Review date set at two years — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible under s. 17 — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt944", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 944 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-23", "docket_number": "2508-06007", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk65t", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Person with a disability — Did the Appellant meet the ODSPA s. 4(1) definition at the date of decision? — Verified impairments and duration established by family physician — Cumulative mental and physical impairments found substantial — Substantial restriction in workplace functioning established — Onus under s. 23(10) discharged — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial impairment” and “substantial restriction” — How should “substantial” be interpreted and applied to impairment and restriction? — Flexible, contextual approach affirmed in Gray and Crane — Individualised assessment of restrictions per Gallier — Totality of evidence, cumulative effects, ADL and IEWS considered — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Reviews — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Review date — Should a review date be set for a person with a disability determination? — Age, ongoing treatment, and desire to re‑train considered — Prospect of improvement noted — Review date fixed one year from the Order — Appeal granted and review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt937", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 937 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-23", "docket_number": "2508-05788", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk65l", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP disability — Definition and thresholds — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” under s. 4(1) — Substantial impairments and substantial restriction in the workplace at the date of the Director’s decision — Guidance from Gray and Crane — HSR, IEWS, ADLI and testimony weighed cumulatively — Appeal granted. Person with a disability confirmed | Evidence — Administrative tribunals — New medical evidence on appeal — Whether post-decision reports relate to the Appellant’s condition at the Director’s decision date — Omar and Jemiolo applied, s. 64(1) ODSPA — Presumption reports speak as of their date unless indicated — Director’s procedural fairness satisfied via Adjudication Summary — New evidence considered | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP review — Review date — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Impairments may improve to allow return to full-time work — Decision maker satisfied review appropriate — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible — Review date set two years from order — Review date set | Procedure — Burden of proof — Onus — Onus on the Appellant to satisfy the Tribunal the Director’s decision was wrong under s. 23(10) — Totality of evidence assessed on a balance of probabilities — Medical reports and testimony accepted — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt936", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 936 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-23", "docket_number": "2508-05745", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk65k", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Guide Dog Benefit — Entitlement to extended benefit under s. 44(1) subs. 5 of the Regulation — Whether the Appellant qualifies for the Guide Dog Benefit — Director’s decision rescinded and benefit granted — Reliance on Tribunal jurisprudence concerning service dogs — Guide dog includes service dog where sufficiently trained — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits legislation — Definition — Neither the Act nor the Regulation defines “guide dog” — What constitutes a “guide dog” under the legislation — Policy directive considered but not binding — Guide dog distinguishable by specialised training to assist disabilities — Robinson-Cooke referenced, Divisional Court dismissal noted — Meaning ascribed case by case | Administrative law — Policy directives — Weight — ODSP policy requiring ADI certification — Whether policy is overly restrictive and not required by the Act — HRTO finding in Robinson-Cooke persuasive, upheld in Minister of Children, Community and Social Services v. Robinson-Cooke, 2024 ONSC 3556 — Tribunal not bound by policy — Director’s decision set aside | Evidence — Benefit entitlement — Standard of proof — Whether the Appellant proved sufficient training to mitigate disabilities as of January 2025 — Detailed and reliable testimony accepted — Professional trainer letters and physician letters corroborative — Tasks established, deep pressure therapy and item retrieval — Balance of probabilities met — Entitlement established | Pensions and social benefits — Retroactivity — Payment date — Proper effective date for the Guide Dog Benefit — Evidence supports sufficient training by January 2025 — Appellant accompanying dog in non‑pet friendly spaces by decision date — Benefit ordered retroactive to the date of decision — Director’s January decision rescinded — Retroactive payment ordered" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt931", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 931 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-23", "docket_number": "2506-03769R", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk65d", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A4", "reasons": [ "A4" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Definition in s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant met the statutory definition at the time of the Director’s decision — Verification under s. 4(1)(c) accepted — Separate elements of s. 4(1) considered — Appeal under ODSPA framework — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial restriction — Whether impairments caused substantial restrictions in personal care, community, or workplace — Crane v Ontario (Disability Support Program) applied — Whole person analysis considered, Gallier referenced — ADLI showed no limitation — Evidence of independence in activities — Functioning in workplace not substantially restricted — Appeal denied | Procedure — Administrative tribunals — Onus of proof — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Whether the Appellant discharged the onus to show the Director’s decision was wrong — Limited reconsideration granted to consider late submissions — Medical and testimonial evidence weighed on balance of probabilities — Onus not met — Decision of the Director affirmed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt922", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 922 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-23", "docket_number": "2503-01737", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk653", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) ODSPA at the time of the Director’s decision — Substantial physical and mental impairments found — Substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace established — Appeal granted — Decision rescinded — Income support payable if otherwise eligible | Statutory interpretation — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Substantial impairment and restriction — Meaning of “substantial” informed by Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario (Disability Support Program) — Flexible, contextual approach applied to whole person — Cumulative assessment of impairments and activities of daily living endorsed — Person with a disability status confirmed | Evidence — Disability determinations — Verification — Whether impairments, duration and restrictions were verified under s. 4(1)(c) ODSPA and onus met under s. 23(10) — Physician’s HSR, IEWS and ADLI accepted — Testimony found credible and corroborated — No negative inference from treatment barriers — Verification satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — Review of eligibility — Review date — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Likelihood of improvement considered given age and potential treatment — Review date fixed for three years — Determination made notwithstanding current eligibility — Review ordered three years from Order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt921", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 921 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-23", "docket_number": "2412-08048", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk652", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Ported balances — Correctness of overpayment ported from Ontario Works to ODSP — Discrepancy between grant letter deduction and internal review balance — Whether Director proved correctness on balance of probabilities under subs. 23(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act — Evidence of calculation lacking — Ported balance not established — Appeal granted and decisions rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Scope under ODSP Act — Whether Tribunal may assess correctness of Director’s acceptance of ported overpayment — Subsection 21(1) decision affecting eligibility and amount of income support — Deductions from arrears and monthly income support considered — Issue found within scope of appeal — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery — Administrative error and hardship — Whether circumstances affecting recovery should be considered — Flexibility in collection recognised in Surdivall v. Ontario, 2014 ONCA 240 — Finding of incorrect ported overpayment obviated further analysis — Element of administrative error noted — Collection decisions set aside" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1022", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1022 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-23", "docket_number": "2509-06709", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkd3", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA s. 4(1)(a) — Substantial impairment — Whether the Appellant’s mental impairments met the substantial threshold — Application of Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Evidence of anxiety and ADHD assessed at time of Director’s decision — Medication response and limited treatment considered — Impairments not substantial — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA s. 4(1)(c) — Medical verification — Adequacy and weight of Health Status Report and IEWS ratings — Family doctor’s brief history and limited contacts reviewed — Psychiatrist’s single consult and conservative recommendations examined — Verification accepted but not persuasive of substantiality at relevant time — Decision affirmed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA s. 23(10) — Onus of proof — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Balance of probabilities standard applied to medical and testimonial evidence — Currency, detail, and reliability scrutinised — Onus not met — Appeal dismissed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA s. 4(1)(b) — Activities of daily living — Whether restrictions analysis required after finding no substantial impairment — Separate tests under Crane v. Ontario acknowledged — Both thresholds must be met for disability status — No need to consider restrictions where impairment not substantial — Decision upheld" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1020", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1020 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-23", "docket_number": "2509-06705", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkd1", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability under s. 4(1) — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions assessed cumulatively, Gray and Crane applied — Onus on Appellant under s. 23(10) addressed — Director’s decision found wrong — Person with a disability within s. 4(1) — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Whether impairments, likely duration, and restrictions were verified under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report by family physician accepted as proper verification — IEWS and ADLI narratives consistent with verified impairments — Encounter notes provide historical support — Verification requirement met — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Whether substantial restriction in the workplace established under s. 4(1)(b) — Test from Gallier on contextual assessment applied — Testimony, ADLI ratings, and IEWS show unpredictable symptoms, reduced productivity, social withdrawal — Substantial restriction in workplace found — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Appellant’s age and continued efforts at treatment considered — Ongoing pain management and IV Lidocaine treatments noted — Impairments may improve to below substantial — Review date set for three years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1016", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1016 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-23", "docket_number": "2509-06691", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkcv", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Definition of person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether substantial impairments and resulting substantial restrictions were proven — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Migraines and insomnia found substantial on totality — Substantial restriction in ability to work established — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Procedure — Tribunal powers — Late evidence — O. Reg. 222/98, ss. 64, 65(3) — Whether to admit medical documents filed less than 30 days before hearing — Unsigned chart adding anxiety not accepted — Revised IEWS and ADLI declined due to unverified new condition — Anxiety evidence accepted only as symptom linked to migraines — Late medical evidence refused in part | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP administration — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set where impairment may improve — Ongoing investigation and medication adjustments noted — Pending neurology assessment may affect substantiality — Decision maker satisfied review is appropriate — Review date set for one year from order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1012", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1012 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-23", "docket_number": "2509-06660", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkcn", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Adequacy of reasons — Whether the Director’s decisions and submissions provided adequate reasons and calculations — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 56 and s. 62 requirements — Failure to “show their work” and reconcile inconsistent figures — Inability to validate amounts or assess accuracy — Prima facie case not established — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — ODSP income support — Whether the Director established a prima facie overpayment for months in issue — O. Reg. 222/98, ss. 37 to 43, EI fully deductible, earnings exemptions, gifts s. 43(1)13 — Inconsistent totals and absent calculations and source documents — Director’s overpayment assessments not proven — Decisions rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus — Application of s. 23(10) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Appellants must show Director’s decisions were incorrect — Director’s failure to provide calculations and records undermined assessment — Appellants met onus on balance of probabilities — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Remedies — Repayment — Whether rescission and repayment should be ordered — Director’s decisions of specific dates rescinded — Amounts potentially recovered by deduction from monthly ODSP income support — Justice requires return of amounts collected on account of these overpayments — Repayment ordered" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1009", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1009 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-23", "docket_number": "2509-06654", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkck", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Definition of person with a disability — Whether impairments under s. 4(1)(a) were substantial — Guidance from Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Family doctor’s IEWS ratings and narrative accepted — Alcohol use disorder, depression and anxiety cumulatively substantial — Appellant found to have substantial impairments — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Whether substantial restriction in functioning in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier considered on person‑specific assessment — ADLI and IEWS show severe and moderate limitations — Reliance on mother for daily tasks and poor motivation noted — Substantial restriction in workplace functioning established — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Tribunal appeals — Burden of proof — Whether Appellant met onus under s. 23(10) to show Director’s decision was wrong — Oral testimony consistent with medical evidence preferred — Lack of specialist treatment not determinative — Family doctor evidence found persuasive — Onus met on balance of probabilities — Director’s decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Consideration of likelihood of improvement given ongoing treatment and age — Determination that impairment may improve over time — Review date fixed for one year — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1008", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1008 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-23", "docket_number": "2509-06647", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkch", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether impairments and restrictions met substantial thresholds under s. 4(1) — Verification by a person with prescribed qualifications established — Congenital scoliosis and chest deformity causing substantial workplace restrictions — Director’s decision wrong under s. 23(10) — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Procedure — Administrative tribunals — Late medical evidence — O. Reg. 222/98, subs. 64(1), 65(3) — Should Form 5 filed less than 30 days before the hearing be admitted? — No prejudice to Director, significant prejudice to Appellant if refused — Tribunal accepts evidence on terms it considers appropriate — New medical documents admitted | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial” impairment and restriction — Guidance from Gray, Crane, Gallier — Flexible meaning related to individual circumstances and purposes of the Act — Three separate tests requiring separate analysis — Broader segment with significant long-term functional barriers encompassed — Flexible construction applied" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt999", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 999 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-20", "docket_number": "2509-06607", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk684", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — ODSP Act, s. 4(1) — Did the Appellant meet the statutory definition at the time of the Director’s decision? — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions assessed — Gray v. Director ODSP, Crane, and Gallier considered — Verified conditions relied on — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Appeal granted | Procedure — Social Benefits Tribunal — Late evidence — Admission of late medical documents — O. Reg. 222/98, subs. 64(1), 65(3) — Should the late Verification Chart be admitted despite non-compliance? — Relevance to date of decision and prejudice analysed — Minimal prejudice to Director, significant prejudice to Appellant — Verification Chart admitted | Evidence — Medical verification — Verification requirement — Can lay testimony verify impairments, duration or restrictions? — Cumming and Cherryholme applied — Verification must be by a person with prescribed qualifications under s. 4(1)(c) — Self-report and elaboration not accepted as verification — Unverified hernia condition not considered — Unverified condition disregarded | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date for a disability determination — Evidence of recent improvement in sleep apnea and major depressive disorder — Decision maker satisfied a review date is appropriate — Review date set for two years from order date — Review date ordered" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt998", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 998 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-20", "docket_number": "2509-06604", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk683", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — Whether the Appellant meets ODSPA s. 4(1) — Onus under ODSPA s. 23(10) — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Verification by nurse practitioner established — Director’s conclusion that impairments and restrictions were not substantial rejected — Decision of the Director rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Substantial impairment — Whether anxiety-related impairments were substantial at the date of decision — Evidence from Health Status Report and testimony accepted — Treatment with Sertraline and psychiatric follow up considered, Jemiolo referenced — IEWS severe and moderate ratings persuasive — Totality of evidence supports substantial impairment — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Substantial restriction — Whether impairments caused a substantial restriction in workplace function — Gallier considered on contextual assessment — ADLI severe ratings in communication and social interactions — Inability to reliably attend external or homebased workplaces due to anxiety — Direct and cumulative effects found — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA administration — Review of disability status — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Appellant young, exploring treatment, counselling commenced after decision — Impairments may improve such that they are no longer substantial — Review date appropriate — Review date set for two years from the Order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt988", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 988 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-20", "docket_number": "2509-06546", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk67q", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — Whether the Appellant meets the requirements of ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Director’s decision that impairments and restrictions were not substantial challenged — Tribunal satisfied criteria in paras. 4(1)(a) to (c) are met — Decision of Director rescinded — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(a) — Are the Appellant’s impairments substantial within the flexible standard in Gray and Crane — Peripheral vascular disease and osteoarthritis verified by Family Doctor — Persistent high pain, limited walking and standing, cane use — Medications not controlling symptoms — Evidence found credible and persuasive — Substantial impairment established | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial restriction — Workplace functioning — Does the direct and cumulative effect cause substantial restriction in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b) — ADLI severe ratings for physical activities, mobility, standing and stairs — Pain limits standing, walking and carrying — Past work required standing and walking — Restrictions found substantial in any workplace, sedentary or physical — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairments may improve — Continued efforts at treatment noted, other medications may become accessible — Decision maker not satisfied impairments are not likely to improve — Review date set five years from Order — Determination to set review date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt981", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 981 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-20", "docket_number": "2509-06455", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk67d", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Overpayments — Was the overpayment correctly assessed after receipt of inheritance? — s. 28(1)19 exemptions for assets derived from inheritance considered — Reasonable time to establish trust or RDSP assessed — Bank statements showed cheque not deposited — Income support owing since May 29, 2025, less interim assistance — Overpayment rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Suspension of income support — Was the hold decision correct? — Reliance on uncashed inheritance cheque and asset cap — Failure to respond to April email seeking guidance — Not in breach once reasonable time extended — Decisions of May 29, 2025 rescinded — Hold incorrect | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits statutes — ODSP Act s. 28(1)19 — Does Policy Directive 4.7’s six‑month period bind the Tribunal? — Legislation sets no time limit — Policy informs but does not fetter discretion — Reasonable period determined on individual basis — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Discretion and remedies — Extension of time to dispose of or exempt inheritance — Factors relevant in determining recovery and asset management — Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 applied — Four‑month extension found reasonable — Income support owing since May 29, 2025, less interim assistance — Time extended" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt977", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 977 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-20", "docket_number": "2509-06399", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk674", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether requirements of ODSPA s. 4(1)(a) to (c) met — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions in activities of daily living — Gray and Crane considered — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Verification by physician with prescribed qualifications — Review date set under O. Reg. 222/98 s. 5(1) — Appeal granted | Evidence — Administrative tribunals — Late evidence — Should late medical evidence be admitted under O. Reg. 222/98 ss. 64, 65? — Prejudice to Director outweighing prejudice to Appellant — Duplicate spine x-ray already in record via HSR acknowledged — Discretion exercised considering timing and fairness — Evidence excluded | Procedure — Adjournments — Tribunals Ontario Practice Direction — Should an adjournment be granted to review late materials? — Exceptional circumstances and fairness not established — Delay attributable to Appellant’s representative — SPPA s. 25.0.1 procedural powers considered — Timely hearing favoured over consensual adjournment without timely request — Adjournment denied | Procedure — Fair hearing — Videoconference — Did camera-off participation by Director’s representative cause unfairness? — Tribunal not bound by employer arrangements — No cross-examination conducted — No prejudice to Appellant established — Hearing fairness unaffected — Objection dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt954", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 954 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-20", "docket_number": "2509-06068", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk665", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets ODSPA s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial impairment” and “substantial restriction” considered with Gray and Crane — Tribunal satisfied on totality of evidence and testimony — Director’s contrary determination found wrong under s. 23(10) — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Verification — Whether impairments, duration, and restrictions were verified under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report and supplemental chart completed by physician with prescribed qualifications — Continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year or more accepted — Verified restrictions in community functioning noted — Impairments and restrictions verified | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace — Whether direct and cumulative effect caused substantial restriction in workplace — Gallier applied to consider Appellant in own situation — Evidence of avoidance of social interactions, difficulty leaving home, lack of personal care and household task completion — ADLI findings persuasive of limited functioning — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Reviews — Review date — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Appellant’s age, desire to improve, and continued efforts at treatment considered — Potential improvement of impairments noted — New employment attempt may affect substantiality over time — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt948", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 948 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-20", "docket_number": "2509-05909", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk65z", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) definition — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Contextual assessment of substantiality undertaken — Director’s decision found wrong under s. 23(10) — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Verification — Verification of impairment, duration, and restrictions under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report and Disability Determination Package completed by family physician with prescribed qualifications — Impairments continuous or recurrent and expected to last one year or more — IEWS and medications corroborating — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Substantial restriction — Do the impairments result in substantial restrictions under s. 4(1)(b)? — ADLI showing multiple moderate and severe restrictions in personal care, community and workplace — Testimony consistent with documentary evidence — Gallier emphasising person‑specific context — Substantial restriction established | Pensions and social benefits — Functional impairment — Substantial impairment — Whether impairments are substantial within s. 4(1)(a) — Gray endorsing broader inclusion and flexible meaning of substantial — Crane recognising overlap between impairment and functional evidence — Testimony and IEWS demonstrating pervasive mental health and pain symptoms — Substantial impairment established | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Review date — Whether to set review date under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Appellant’s age and ongoing treatments considered — Reasonable potential that impairments may improve below substantial threshold — Two‑year review date appropriate — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt942", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 942 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-20", "docket_number": "2508-05987", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk65r", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Person with a disability — s. 4(1) definition — Does the Appellant meet the definition at the time of the Director’s decision? — HSR, IEWS, ADLI and neurologist records verified impairments and duration — Direct and cumulative effect on community and workplace functioning found — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal allowed | Statutory interpretation — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Meaning of “substantial” — How should “substantial” impairment and “substantial restriction” in s. 4(1) be interpreted and applied? — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario, ODSP — Contextual, flexible approach considering whole person — Application to activities of daily living supported by Gallier — Substantial impairment and restrictions found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set? — Tribunal satisfied impairment may improve given age and ongoing treatment efforts — Review date set two years from Order — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Review date set two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt930", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 930 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-20", "docket_number": "2505-03392", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk65c", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Persons with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant met substantial impairment and substantial restriction thresholds at the date of the Director’s decision — Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane v. Director ODSP applied — PTSD and cervical malignancy impairments found substantial — Substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace established — Appeal granted | Procedure — Appeals — Extension of time — ODSPA, subs. 23(2) — Whether reasonable grounds and apparent grounds for an appeal were shown for a late filing — Prejudice to the Director assessed — Intention to proceed and efforts to continue found — Circumstances of legal clinic involvement considered — Extension to file the appeal granted | Evidence — Medical verification — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(c) — Whether nurse practitioner verification and records established impairments, duration and restrictions — Health Status Report, Intellectual and Emotional Wellness Scale, Activities of Daily Living evaluated — Psychiatric consultation notes reviewed — Appellant’s sworn testimony reliable and congruent with clinical findings — Medical verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set where impairments may improve — Ongoing treatment with nurse practitioner, access to family physician, medication management and counselling considered — Potential improvement noted — Review date set for two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1025", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1025 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-20", "docket_number": "2509-06707", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk686", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — Did the Appellant meet s. 4(1) ODSPA at the date of decision? — Substantial impairment threshold interpreted flexibly per Gray and Crane — Diabetes, ADHD and Autism assessed using whole person analysis — Both substantial thresholds not met — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — ODSPA s. 4(1)(c) — Were the impairment, likely duration and restrictions verified by a person with prescribed qualifications? — Flexible approach recognised, purpose to weed out spurious claims per Sandiford — No qualified evidence verifying Borderline Personality Disorder — Related evidence disregarded — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — Burden of proof — ODSPA s. 23(10) — Onus on Appellant to show Director was wrong — Medical evidence and testimony weighed, IEWS and ADLI considered — Treatment level and adequacy assessed, specialist referrals and pharmacotherapy context — On balance of probabilities not satisfied — Decision affirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Substantial restriction — Did the direct and cumulative effect cause substantial restriction in personal care, community, or workplace? — ADLI ratings inconsistent with testimony and level of treatment — Cumulative analysis under Crane applied — Having found no substantial impairment, restrictions need not be decided — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1013", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1013 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-20", "docket_number": "2509-06683", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkcq", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Does the appellant meet the s. 4(1) definition? — Direct and cumulative effect on personal care, community and workplace assessed — Credible testimony and medical evidence preferred over Director’s view — Substantial impairments caused substantial restrictions in activities of daily living — Decision of the Director rescinded — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial” — How should “substantial” in s. 4(1)(a) and (b) be applied? — Gray and Crane considered on broader segment and flexible meaning tied to purposes of the Act — Overlap of evidence for impairment and restriction recognised — Significant but not severe long-term functional barriers encompassed — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Were impairments, likely duration and restrictions properly verified under s. 4(1)(c)? — Health Status Report completed by family physician with monthly care — MRI and examination findings documented continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year or more — Verification accepted — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanism — Review date — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Decision maker considered whether impairment is likely to improve — Pending specialist appointments and more optimum treatment anticipated — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible — Review date set for one year — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1010", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1010 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-20", "docket_number": "2509-06655", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkcl", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of disability — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability under s. 4(1) — Burden under s. 23(10) met — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Medical verification by prescribed professional accepted — Health Status Report and Disability Determination Package persuasive — Director’s decision found wrong — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairments — Cumulative effect — Whether impairments from rheumatoid arthritis and social anxiety were cumulatively substantial — Flexible meaning of “substantial” per Gray — Overlap of evidence under Crane — IEWS ratings and rheumatology reports considered — Testimony credible and consistent — Episodic flare ups and exacerbation accepted — Substantial impairments found | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Whether substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier applied to assess person in own situation — ADLI ratings consistent with limitations — Lloyd considered regarding bad days and episodic impairments — Unpredictability affecting reliability and performance — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set where impairment may improve — Youth, pending therapy, and potential treatment options noted — Determination that impairment not permanent — Review mechanism engaged to reassess substantiality — Review date set for one year" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1006", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1006 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-20", "docket_number": "2509-06640", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkcf", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability eligibility — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” at the Director’s decision date — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied to “substantial” impairment and restriction — Medical verification and ADLI and IEWS ratings assessed — Gallier contextual analysis of restrictions — Appeal granted | Procedure — Tribunal procedure — Witness disclosure — Whether an undisclosed witness may testify despite non‑compliance with Rules 7.21 and 7.22 — Natural justice and prejudice to the Director considered — Interpreter and time constraints noted — No adjournment requested — Witness testimony not permitted | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date where impairments may improve — Appellant’s age and potential for improvement assessed — Determination of disability maintained with future reassessment — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1005", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1005 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-20", "docket_number": "2509-06639", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkcd", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability under s. 4(1) — Application of Gray and Crane to s. 4(1) criteria — Medical evidence and testimony considered cumulatively — Director’s decision rescinded — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Substantial impairment and restriction — Were the Appellant’s mental health conditions and substance abuse substantial at the relevant date — Verified impairments and ADLI, IEWS ratings aligned with testimony — Direct and cumulative effect on workplace function found — Substantial impairment established — Substantial restriction in workplace established | Pensions and social benefits — Reviews — Review date — Should a review date be set under s. 5(1) of the Regulation — Likelihood of improvement considered with age and treatment efforts — Referral to support program noted — Determination that impairments may improve — Review date set for two years | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus — Was the onus under subs. 23(10) of the Act met — Appellant’s sworn testimony consistent with medical documentation — Totality of the evidence accepted on a balance of probabilities — Decision of the Director found wrong — Onus discharged" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1004", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1004 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-20", "docket_number": "2509-06637", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkcc", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability under s. 4(1) — Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane applied to substantiality — Medical verification and testimony considered at the date of the Director’s decision — Tribunal satisfied within the meaning of subsection 4(1) — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction — Do chronic back pain impairments and workplace limitations meet the substantial thresholds in s. 4(1)(a) and (b)? — Verified pain, right leg weakness, fecal incontinence — Epidural injections and pharmacotherapy with little relief — Workplace function substantially restricted — Person with a disability within s. 4(1) | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus of proof — Subsection 23(10) places the onus on an Appellant to satisfy the Tribunal that the decision of the Director was wrong — Findings on a balance of probabilities based on medical evidence and sworn testimony — Onus met | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Review date under O. Reg. 222/98 — Whether it is appropriate to set a review date under s. 5(1) — Appellant’s age and continued efforts at treatment considered — Impairments may improve depending on spinal surgeon recommendations — Review date set for three years — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt1003", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 1003 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-20", "docket_number": "2509-06635", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kkkcb", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — ODSPA s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant meets the definition of “person with a disability” — Interpretation of “substantial” impairments and restrictions applied (Gray, Crane) — Medical verification under s. 4(1)(c) accepted — Evidence of Major Depressive Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder credited — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Found to be a person with a disability | Procedure — Appeals — Extension of time — ODSPA s. 23(2), O. Reg. 222/98, s. 61(1) — Whether late appeal should be accepted — Intent to pursue appeal and mailing issues considered — Reasonable grounds and apparent grounds for appeal found — Extension to file the appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Benefits administration — Review of disability status — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Ongoing impairments acknowledged with potential for improvement — Age and continued treatment efforts considered — Review date fixed two years from order — Review date set two years from decision" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt997", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 997 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-19", "docket_number": "2509-06602", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk682", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability eligibility — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant was a “person with a disability” at the time of the Director’s decision — Major depressive disorder causing substantial impairments — Substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace found — Director’s decision rescinded — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits — Meaning of “substantial” — Gray v. Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program, 2002 CanLII 7805, applied — Ontario (Disability Support Program) v. Crane, 2006 CanLII 38348, three separate tests under s. 4(1) — “Substantial” given flexible, contextual meaning — Evidence of workplace functioning considered with impairment — Broader definition encompasses significant long-term barriers — Interpretation affirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — ODSPA s. 4(1)(c) — Whether impairment, likely duration, and restriction were verified by a person with prescribed qualifications — Health Status Report and Verification Chart by psychiatrist accepted — IEWS and ADLI considered — Psychiatric consult notes corroborative of continuity and duration — Verification requirement met | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date for a determination that a person is a person with a disability — Ongoing psychotherapy and barriers to treatment noted — Likelihood of improvement considered — Review date set for one year from the Order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt996", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 996 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-19", "docket_number": "2509-06598", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk681", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Definition of person with a disability — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Did the Appellant meet the statutory definition at the time of the Director’s decision? — Verification by prescribed professional established — Onus under s. 23(10) met — Appeal granted — Person with a disability determined | Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Substantial impairments — Interpretation of “substantial” under s. 4(1)(a) — Guidance from Gray v. Director of ODSP and Crane applied — Whether impairments, viewed cumulatively, were substantial — Medical and testimonial evidence credited — Hypertension not substantial — Substantial impairments established | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Whether impairments resulted in substantial restriction in function in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier considered on contextual assessment — ADLI and testimony persuasive — Housekeeping and shopping severe, multiple moderates — Substantial restriction in workplace function found | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for a disability determination? — Limited improvement in left shoulder and elbow noted — Further investigation pending including MRI — Review appropriate given potential for change — Review date set for two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt987", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 987 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-19", "docket_number": "2509-06538", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk67p", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of “person with a disability” — Whether the Appellant met subsection 4(1) of the ODSPA — Onus under subs. 23(10) addressed — Medical and testimonial evidence weighed — Director’s determination overturned — Person with a disability within the meaning of subs. 4(1) found — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications under s. 4(1)(c) — Were the impairments, likely duration, and restrictions properly verified? — Health Status Report and Disability Determination Package considered — Nurse Practitioner evidence accepted as reliable — IEWS and ADLI completed by treating professional — Verification requirements satisfied — Director’s decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment and restriction — Workplace functioning — Whether impairments were “substantial” and resulted in substantial restrictions in the workplace — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Whole person assessment, cumulative effects considered — Employment Opinion and testimony preferred over ADLI ratings — Substantial impairments and substantial workplace restrictions established — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — Should a review date be set under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98? — Age and ongoing treatment efforts considered — Possibility of improvement noted — Determination not finalised indefinitely — Review date scheduled three years from the Order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt984", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 984 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-19", "docket_number": "2509-06507", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk67j", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works eligibility — Full-time post-secondary attendance — Whether the Appellant was eligible for OW while in full-time studies — Duty to make reasonable efforts to obtain OSAP, O. Reg. 134/98, s. 13 — Non‑disclosure of student status and scholarship in Application for Assistance — Onus under Ontario Works Act, s. 28(11) not met — Overpayment confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayment recovery — Discretion — Whether recovery should be waived or delayed — Tribunal authority to set recovery terms affirmed, Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 — Flexibility to meet objectives including accountability to the taxpayer — Financial hardship and anticipated employment considered — Recovery suspended until March 1, 2027 — Appeal granted in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt976", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 976 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-19", "docket_number": "2509-06394", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk673", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met the s. 4(1) ODSPA definition — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions assessed on totality of evidence — Gray and Crane considered, Gallier applied — Director’s decision rescinded — Income support to be paid if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability definition — Substantial impairments and restrictions — Whether substantial physical impairments and cumulative effect caused substantial restrictions in community and workplace under s. 4(1)(a) and (b) — Gray v. Director and Crane applied — Credible testimony and medical records accepted — Function in workplace substantially restricted — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Whether impairments, likely duration, and restrictions were verified under s. 4(1)(c) ODSPA — Health Status Report completed by family physician accepted — Clinical notes, imaging, and therapy records corroborated — Onus under s. 23(10) met on balance of probabilities — Verification satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — Likelihood of improvement — Whether a review date should be set under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Longstanding spinal condition, major surgery, persistent symptoms and ongoing treatment — Procedure intended to prevent deterioration, limited improvement — No review date appropriate — Review deferred indefinitely" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt969", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 969 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-19", "docket_number": "2509-06299", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk66q", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Did the Appellant meet the definition of “person with a disability”? — Substantial impairments assessed cumulatively — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Verified PTSD and Anxiety Disorder found substantial — Director’s decision wrong under s. 23(10) — Appeal allowed, person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Whether substantial restriction in workplace established — Evidence of panic attacks, poor concentration and memory — IEWS severe ratings for Anxiety and Emotional Dysregulation — Gallier and Gray confirm person-specific, workplace-focused test — Ability to cope day to day not determinative — Substantial restriction in workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — Treatment considerations — Absence of treatment — Does lack of medication or counselling preclude substantial impairment? — Jemiolo confirms treatment assists but not required — Sparks notes impairments can be barriers to treatment — Appellant’s beliefs and cost barriers accepted — IEWS and credible testimony outweigh treatment gap — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairments may improve with counselling coverage? — Prior helpful counselling noted — Possibility of improvement identified — Decision maker not satisfied impairment unlikely to improve — Review date set for one year" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt941", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 941 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-19", "docket_number": "2508-05981", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk65q", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Overpayment assessment and calculation — Was the overpayment validly assessed and correctly calculated? — Unreported CPP, OAS, GIS and GAINS applied against income support — CRA records accepted — Subsection 12(1) of the Regulation engaged — Decision letter and internal review confirmed — Overpayment of $35294.63 upheld — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery and discretion — Reduction of recoverable overpayment — Should recovery be reduced in the exercise of discretion? — Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 considered — Health challenges and innocent mistake weighed against accountability to taxpayers — Financial hardship not enormous — Monthly recovery manageable — Recoverable amount reduced to $30000 — Appeal granted in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt934", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 934 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-19", "docket_number": "2508-05692", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk65h", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP disability definition — Substantial impairment and restrictions — Whether Appellant is a “person with a disability” under s. 4(1) — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Left body weakness and gait issues assessed — ADLI ratings largely “no limitation” — Insufficient evidence of substantial impairment or restriction at decision date — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Duration and qualified verification under s. 4(1)(a), (c) — Were impairments and restrictions properly verified and of one-year duration? — Family Physician verified stroke-related impairment and some restrictions — Other conditions marked “less than 1 year” excluded — Restrictions evidence not tied to left-sided weakness — Decision of Director affirmed | Procedure — Adjournments — Tribunal powers under ODSP Reg. 222/98, s. 64(3) — Can an adjournment be granted to obtain further medical evidence? — Prior adjournment noted — Statutory bar to adjournments for medical reports applied — Request refused at hearing — Proceedings continued on existing record — Adjournment refused | Procedure — Burden of proof — ODSPA s. 23(10) — Did the Appellant satisfy the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong? — Onus lies with Appellant — Limited specialist follow up and minimal treatment — Medical reporting not persuasive of substantial impairment — Whole-person analysis does not alter result — Appeal dismissed and Director’s decision affirmed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt928", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 928 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-19", "docket_number": "2505-03328", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk659", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Is the Appellant a person with a disability within s. 4(1)? — Onus under s. 23(10) met — Director’s decision that criteria not met overturned — Evidence from HSR, ADLI, IEWS and testimony accepted — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment — Threshold — Whether impairments were cumulatively substantial and expected to last one year or more — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Director, ODSP — Continuous or recurrent impairments verified by prescribed professional — Totality of evidence considered — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Substantial restriction — Do the impairments substantially restrict personal care, community function, or workplace function? — Gallier applied to assess restrictions in Appellant’s own situation — ADLI ratings and testimony consistent with significant functional limits — Personal care, community and workplace functioning substantially restricted — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for the disability determination? — Chronic conditions and prognosis to “remain same” — Age, work history and functional decline considered — Impairments not likely to improve to below substantial — No review date directed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt926", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 926 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-19", "docket_number": "2504-02498", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk657", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Calculation — Whether the Director’s assessment of an overpayment was correct and whether the total amount was properly calculated — Itemised monthly totals examined — Inclusion of past balances clarified — Total corrected to $69,930.10 — Overpayment fully recoverable — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 14(1) — Appeal granted in part | Procedure — Parties — Adding a party — Whether the former spouse should be added as a party to the appeal — ODSPA s. 16(4) discretion considered — Policy directives not binding but informative — Decision not to include spouse as party reasonable — Assessment of share to spouse within Director’s discretion — Request to add party refused | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery — Discretion — Should recovery be deferred or limited given the Appellant’s circumstances? — Broad but reasoned discretion per Surdivall v Ontario Disability Support Program, 2014 ONCA 240 — Hardship, homelessness, and expenses assessed — Full relief from recovery refused — Recovery deferred 12 months, then $25 per month for 24 months — Repayment plan to be negotiated | Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Benefit unit — Did the Director act reasonably in determining spousal status and cancelling income support for failure to provide required information? — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 1(1) definition of spouse applied — ODSPA s. 5(1)(d) information requirement — Reasonable inference from limited CRA data accepted — Cancellation and recalculation upheld" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt961", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 961 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-18", "docket_number": "2509-06207", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk66d", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability benefits — Eligibility determination — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant met the definition of “person with a disability” at the date of decision — Interpretation of “substantial” impairments guided by Gray and Crane — Medical and testimonial evidence accepted — Continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year or more — Appeal allowed and disability status recognised | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Do substantial impairments result in substantial restrictions in personal care, community or workplace? — Gallier applied to assess restrictions in the Appellant’s own context — ADLI severe ratings and wheelchair use persuasive — Workplace functioning unreasonable given symptoms and limitations — Substantial restrictions in activities of daily living found | Pensions and social benefits — Verification and onus — ODSPA, ss. 4(1)(c), 23(10) — Were the impairments and restrictions properly verified and onus met? — Health Status Report, ADLI and supplemental specialist records accepted — Evidence bridges gap to date of decision — Tribunal satisfied Appellant proved Director’s decision was wrong — Verification established and burden discharged | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set despite finding of disability? — Consideration of age, noted improvement, and limited recent documentary evidence — Decision maker not satisfied impairment unlikely to improve — One‑year review period appropriate — Review date set for one year" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt957", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 957 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-18", "docket_number": "2509-06145", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk668", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — ODSPA s. 4(1) definition — Is the Appellant a “person with a disability” at the time of the Director’s decision? — PTSD and ADHD verified by Family Physician — Direct and cumulative effect on activities of daily living assessed — Tribunal satisfied definition met — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability criteria — Substantial impairment and restriction — Meaning of “substantial” under s. 4(1) informed by Gray and Crane — IEWS and ADLI ratings considered with psychiatrist reports — Workplace function substantially restricted notwithstanding some personal care capacity — Whether impairments and restrictions cumulatively substantial — Findings of substantial impairment and restriction made | Pensions and social benefits — Ongoing eligibility — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairment may improve with treatment and coping mechanisms? — Young age, accessibility services, potential modalities of treatment considered — Review scheduled one year from Order — Review date set | Evidence — Burden of proof — Onus and standard — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Who bears the onus to show the Director’s decision was wrong and was it met on a balance of probabilities? — Medical verification and credible testimony accepted — Cumulative probative value outweighs limited documentation — Onus met" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt955", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 955 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-18", "docket_number": "2509-06108", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk666", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) definition — Do substantial impairments cause substantial restrictions in activities of daily living? — Guidance from Gray, Crane and Gallier applied — Medical and testimonial evidence accepted — Cumulative mild ADLI limitations found substantial — Tribunal satisfied Appellant is a person with a disability — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for the disability determination? — Age and limited post‑surgery prognosis considered — Impairment not likely to improve — Decision maker satisfied no review appropriate — No review of the determination directed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt952", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 952 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-18", "docket_number": "2509-06058", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk663", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works — Overpayments — EI benefits as income — Whether the decision to assess an overpayment was correct — O Reg 134/98, s. 48(1) applied to EI payments — Evidence established EI received during relevant period — Onus under Ontario Works Act, s. 28(11) not met — Appeal granted in part — Overpayment validly assessed | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works — Calculation of overpayments — Budgetary requirements and income deduction — Whether the amount of overpayment was correctly calculated — O Reg 134/98, s. 40(1) framework applied — Appellant acknowledged shelter rent component — No error shown in Administrator’s figures — Amount confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works — Recovery and collection — Tribunal’s discretion — Whether overpayment should be collected given financial hardship — Reliance on Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 — Shelter residence, infant care, EI ending, anticipated OW return — Purposes of Act, s. 1, balanced with accountability — Overpayment not collectable" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt945", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 945 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-18", "docket_number": "2508-06009", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk65v", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility determination — Does the Appellant meet the definition of “person with a disability” under s. 4(1) ODSPA? — Director’s decision that impairments and restrictions were not substantial — Onus on Appellant under s. 23(10) ODSPA — Medical evidence and testimony weighed — Decision of Director rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairments — Cumulative assessment — Were the Appellant’s impairments substantial within s. 4(1)(a) ODSPA? — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Flexible meaning of “substantial” applied to whole person — Psychiatric and family physician evidence considered — Substantial impairments found on balance of probabilities | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Did the impairments result in substantial restrictions in the workplace under s. 4(1)(b) ODSPA? — Restrictions verified in DDP and IEWS scores — Social anxiety and sleep apnea affecting attendance and coworker interactions — Barriers to employment and retraining established — Substantial restriction in workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — Medical review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set because impairment is likely to improve? — Post‑decision psychiatric report indicating improved mental status and anticipated benefit from CPAP — Decision maker satisfied a review is appropriate — Review date fixed for one year — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt939", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 939 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-18", "docket_number": "2508-05831", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk65n", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — Whether impairments and restrictions under s. 4(1) ODSPA were substantial — Direct and cumulative effect on workplace functioning assessed — IEWS and ADLI ratings aligned with testimony — Gallier considered on contextual assessment — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction found — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Whether impairment, duration and restrictions were verified under s. 4(1)(c) ODSPA — Health Status Report completed by family doctor accepted — Physiotherapy clinic record corroborative of functional limits — Onus under s. 23(10) met on balance of probabilities — Verification requirements satisfied — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — Ontario Disability Support Program — Meaning of substantial — How should “substantial” in s. 4(1) be interpreted? — Gray v. Director ODSP applied for flexible, purposive approach — Crane confirms separate tests with potential evidentiary overlap — Whole-person context considered within statutory purposes — Broader segment intended to be encompassed — Person with a disability confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for the disability determination? — Likelihood of improvement considered given age and continuing treatment efforts — Not satisfied impairment unlikely to improve permanently — Review date set at three years — Income support otherwise payable — Review date set three years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt938", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 938 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-18", "docket_number": "2508-05805", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk65m", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) criteria — Onus on Appellant under s. 23(10) — Guidance from Gray and Crane on “substantial” and separate tests — Tribunal satisfied impairments and restrictions meet statutory thresholds — Decision of Director rescinded — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Substantial restriction — Do the Appellant’s impairments substantially restrict workplace functioning? — Assessment under Gallier focuses on this person’s circumstances — Panic attacks, poor concentration, executive dysfunction, social withdrawal — Cumulative effect across domains accepted despite mild and moderate ADLI ratings — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Were impairments, likely duration, and restrictions verified under s. 4(1)(c)? — Health Status Report and IEWS completed by family doctor — Continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last a year or more — Medical assessment consistent with testimony and ADLI — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanism — Review date under regulation — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Decision maker may set review where impairment likely to improve — Age and continued pharmacotherapy considered — Two‑year review appropriate — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt994", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 994 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-17", "docket_number": "2509-06584", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk67z", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Assessment and calculation — Unreported CPP-D as income under the Act — Was the overpayment correctly assessed and calculated? — Overpayment assessed in accordance with legislation and policy — Appellant did not dispute correctness — Director’s determination confirmed by Tribunal — Valid assessment and quantum upheld — Appeal granted only in part | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Recovery and discretion — Whether recovery should be limited due to administrative error — Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 applied — Caseworker aware of CPP-D and failed to act — Flexibility in collection to meet legislative objectives — Recovery limited due to administrative error — Recovery restricted | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Repayment terms — What recovery rate is appropriate given financial hardship? — Evidence of monthly deficit and unsecured debt accepted — Consideration of impact of repayment on essential needs — Accountability to taxpayers balanced with hardship — Low monthly recovery ordered — Reduced repayment rate ordered" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt983", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 983 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-17", "docket_number": "2509-06505", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk67h", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Definition of person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Does the Appellant meet the statutory definition of “person with a disability”? — Court of Appeal guidance in Gray and Crane applied — Continuous or recurrent mental impairment verified — Broader, flexible meaning of “substantial” recognised — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability assessment — Substantial impairments and restrictions — Whether substantial impairments resulted in substantial restrictions in workplace function — Direct and cumulative effect on activities of daily living considered — Medical evidence and testimony consistent — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Determination made as of Director’s decision date — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Administration — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairments may improve? — Age and treatment efforts considered — Support from ODSP may facilitate improvement — Decision maker not satisfied impairment is unlikely to improve — Review date set | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus of proof — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Did the Appellant satisfy the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong? — Verified impairments and restrictions accepted — Sworn testimony aligned with Health Status Report and vocational evaluation — Evidence preferred over insurer assessment — Onus met and decision rescinded" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt974", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 974 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-17", "docket_number": "2509-06376", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk670", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Definition of person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met ODSPA s. 4(1) — Onus under ODSPA s. 23(10) to show Director was wrong — Verification by prescribed practitioner accepted — Cumulative assessment of impairments applied — Decision of the Director rescinded — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Substantial impairments — Whether impairments were “substantial” under s. 4(1)(a) — Guidance from Gray and Crane on flexible, contextual meaning — Evidence of insomnia, anxiety, depression, chronic back pain — Cumulative effect on functioning accepted — Vague testimony not determinative — Impairments found substantial | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Substantial restrictions — Whether restrictions in personal care or community functioning under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier applied to assess claimant in own situation — ADL Index and IEWS support limitations — Inability to bathe regularly, household chores and leaving home limited — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Administration of benefits — Review date — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Ongoing counselling and medical follow‑up noted — Possibility impairments may improve — Decision maker not satisfied impairment unlikely to improve — Review date set for one year" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt972", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 972 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-17", "docket_number": "2509-06364", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk66x", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” at the date of the Director’s decision — Interpretation of “substantial” impairments and restrictions informed by Gray and Crane — Conservative treatment and functioning most days considered — Part‑time work and caregiving abilities evaluated — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — Burden of proof — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Requirement to establish all three factors in s. 4(1) per Crane — Evidence of impairments and restrictions insufficient on balance of probabilities — New or worsened conditions may support re‑application per Omar — Decision affirmed | Evidence — Medical reports — Disability eligibility — Weight of Health Status Report, Intellectual and Emotional Wellness Scale and Activities of Daily Living Index — Whether documentary and testimonial evidence established substantial impairment — Lack of specialist corroboration and conservative treatment reduced weight — Part‑time work and daily functioning inconsistent with severe ratings — Little weight given — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt968", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 968 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-17", "docket_number": "2509-06281", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk66n", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability, s. 4(1) — Did the Appellant meet s. 4(1) at the Director’s decision date? — Gray and Crane applied to “substantial” impairment and restriction — Verified impairments and restrictions accepted under s. 4(1)(c) — DAU summaries given little weight — Decision of Director rescinded — Appeal granted | Evidence — Administrative tribunals — Medical evidence timing — O. Reg. 222/98, ss. 47(7), 64(1)(a) — Whether new medical evidence is admissible if unrelated to the decision date — Omar and Jemiolo applied — Reports presumed current unless stated otherwise — Evidence post‑dating decision given no weight — Evidence relating to relevant time admitted in part | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Substantial restriction — Whether impairments resulted in substantial restriction in a workplace — Gallier considered on individualised assessment — Intellectual and Emotional Wellness Scale and ADLI support restriction — Psychiatric opinion on reliability and attendance at work accepted — Restriction in workplace found — Person with a disability status confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus of proof, s. 23(10) — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Sworn testimony and medical reports preferred over summary adjudication — Cumulative impairments and workplace restriction established on balance of probabilities — Onus met — Appeal granted and review date set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt964", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 964 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-17", "docket_number": "2509-06250", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk66h", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) ODSPA at the Director’s decision date — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions assessed in workplace functioning — Gray, Crane and Gallier applied — Credible testimony and medical documentation preferred over summary adjudication — Onus under s. 23(10) met — Appeal granted | Evidence — Administrative tribunals — Medical records — Whether Form 5 medical documents are admissible and what weight they should receive — Omar and Jemiolo applied to temporal relevance — Evidence must relate to condition at the Director’s decision date — Post‑decision portions given no weight — Relevant pre‑decision reports considered for disability determination — Evidence admitted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Verification — Whether s. 4(1)(c) ODSPA verification by a prescribed person was satisfied — Health Status Report and physician charts accepted — Impairments and restrictions of one year or more verified — Dermatology and ophthalmology records corroborative — Verification requirements met — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review — Whether to set a review date under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Some improvement with treatment and pending ophthalmological consult noted — Decision maker not satisfied impairment is not likely to improve — Review period appropriate — Review date set for one year — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt962", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 962 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-17", "docket_number": "2509-06213", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk66f", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability under s. 4(1) — Verification by prescribed professional established under subs. 4(1)(c) — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions assessed cumulatively — Clear and consistent testimony corroborated by medical evidence — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Decision of Director rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Determination that impairments may improve given age and ongoing treatment — Review date appropriate as impairment not shown unlikely to improve — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Review date set for one year | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits legislation — Definition of disability — Interpretation of “substantial impairment” and “substantial restriction” under s. 4(1) — Flexible meaning applied to individual circumstances consistent with purposes of the Act (Gray) — Separate analyses for paras. 4(1)(a) and (b) recognised with evidentiary overlap (Crane) — Person-centred assessment of activities of daily living affirmed — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt911", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 911 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-17", "docket_number": "2510-06871", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk689", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Termination for missing information — Whether termination of ODSP assistance for failing to provide information was correct — Notification efforts and outstanding information assessed — Prior reporting and employment start-up benefits indicating awareness — Eligibility affected by unverified income details — File closure for missing information upheld — Termination confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Overpayments — Whether assessment of an ODSP overpayment was correct and amount reconsidered — Failure to provide information justifying overpayment — T4 earnings and absence of shelter benefits to be used — Global eligibility reassessment rejected — Overpayment decision upheld but amount referred back for recalculation | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Relief from recovery — Whether relief from recovery should be granted on the basis of hardship — Discretion to vary recovery applied per Surdivall v. Ontario — Limited income alone insufficient — Monthly income and expenses reviewed — No exceptional circumstances established — Relief from recovery refused" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt910", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 910 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-17", "docket_number": "2509-06533", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk67n", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works — Overpayments — Whether the overpayment was validly assessed and correctly calculated — Unreported OSAP non-educational funding treated as income — No administrative error alleged — Application for Assistance and Rights and Responsibilities signed — Income support paid while ineligible under the Act and Regulation — Overpayment confirmed — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery — Discretion to delay collection — Should recovery be delayed given financial hardship and s. 1 objectives of the Ontario Works Act — Surdivall v. Ontario cited on flexibility in collection — Appellant enrolled in school with minimal funds and deferred rent — Balancing temporary assistance with accountability to taxpayers — Recovery delayed to September 1, 2026 — Appeal granted in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt870", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 870 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-17", "docket_number": "2509-06041", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk63j", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — CPP income and ODSP — Was the Director correct in assessing an overpayment based on CPP income? — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, s. 23(10) onus applied — Ontario Regulation 222/98, s. 29(1), s. 37(1) require deduction of CPP — Appellant received CPP during relevant months — Assessment and quantum calculation supported by record — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery and relief — Administrative error and hardship — Should recovery be reduced due to ODSP input error and alleged hardship? — Surdivall v. Ontario considered on flexibility and taxpayer accountability — Appellant did not intentionally misreport — Overpayment arose from caseworker error — Balanced reduction ordered — Recovery reduced by 10 percent | Administrative law — Jurisdiction — Procedural fairness — Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to decide fairness of the Internal Review process? — Empowering legislation limits authority to appeals from Director’s decisions — Internal institutional processes of the Director not reviewable — Procedural fairness before Tribunal satisfied through hearing — Jurisdiction to address IR fairness declined | Evidence — Proof of hardship — Sufficiency of documentary evidence — Did the Appellant prove financial hardship preventing recovery? — Chart of expenses and revenues incomplete and unsupported — Absence of bank statements, bills, or debt proof — Undisclosed $400 contribution undermined credibility — Enormous hardship in Surdivall not established — Financial hardship not proven" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt860", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 860 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-17", "docket_number": "2508-05990", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk63b", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability under s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Onus under s. 23(10) to show Director’s decision was wrong — Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane applied — Decision of Director rescinded — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment — Physical impairments — Whether impairments were “substantial” under s. 4(1)(a) — Left hip pain due to avascular necrosis, lower back pain — Medical evidence from physician and orthopaedic specialist, imaging of hips — Flexible, contextual approach to “substantial” per Gray and Crane — Conservative treatment with limited response — Substantial impairments found | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Whether impairments caused substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier considered on person-specific context — Limitations in standing, walking, sitting, household tasks, ESL attendance — ADLI showing moderate limitations aligned with testimony — Substantial restriction in workplace functioning found | Pensions and social benefits — Determinations and reviews — Review date — Whether to set a review date under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Ongoing specialist treatment and potential for improvement — Appellant young, treatment may decrease substantial nature of impairments — Decision maker satisfied a review is appropriate — Review date set for two years | Pensions and social benefits — Tribunal practice — Evidence and burden — Whether the Appellant met the onus under s. 23(10) — Findings based on medical documentation, specialist reports, testimony, ADLI — Totality of evidence aligned, frequency of treatment supportive — Direct and cumulative effects assessed across domains — Standard met and Director’s determination overturned — Appeal allowed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt821", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 821 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-17", "docket_number": "2503-02009", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk61t", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Ontario Works — Eligibility for assistance where immigration status is questioned — Whether Regulation 134/98, s. 6 renders the Appellant ineligible — Evidence of residence, children enrolled in school, prior OW eligibility — Administrator confirmed no deportation order — Appellant not a tourist or visitor — Decision to deny assistance on status grounds incorrect — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — Social welfare legislation — Undefined terms — Interpretation of “visitor” and “tourist” in Regulation 134/98, s. 6(1)2 — Remedial approach, ambiguity resolved in favour of applicant (Wedekind, Gray) — Reliance on Ontario Works Directive 3.1 and persuasive Tribunal decisions — Plain meaning and context considered — Terms construed narrowly — Eligibility not barred | Procedure — Appeals before Tribunal — Onus — Whether the Appellant met the s. 28(11) onus to show the Administrator’s decision was incorrect — Standard of more likely than not applied — Credible testimony accepted — Administrator’s confirmation regarding lack of deportation order weighed — Onus discharged — Appeal allowed | Citizenship and immigration — Status and removal — Ontario Works eligibility — Whether the Appellant fell within s. 6(1)1 as a person under a deportation or enforceable removal order — Administrator’s representative confirmed no deportation order — PRRA history and CBSA reporting acknowledged — Applicant not within excluded removal classes — Eligibility from a status perspective maintained — Decision rescinded" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt909", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 909 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-16", "docket_number": "2509-06408", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk675", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility — Is the Appellant a person with a disability under ODSPA s. 4(1)? — Onus on Appellant under s. 23(10) met — Medical verification by physician accepted — Director’s decision wrong — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Substantial impairment — Whether substantial impairments proven on a balance of probabilities — Gray and Crane interpreted on flexible meaning of “substantial” — Alcohol use disorder and chronic pain cumulatively substantial — Medical records and testimony credited — Other impairments not decided — Finding of substantial impairments | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Do impairments cause substantial restriction in a workplace? — Gallier applied to consider individual context — Chronic pain and alcohol use with narcotic analgesic undermine safety and reliability — Physician evidence supports moderate limitations — Construction work not feasible — Substantial restriction in workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Potential for improvement given age, employment history, recent treatment — Decision maker satisfied a review is appropriate — Future reassessment ordered — Review date set | Pensions and social benefits — Remedies — Tribunal order — Whether to rescind Director’s decision and order income support — Decision of Respondent rescinded — ODSPA applied with O. Reg. 222/98 s. 17 for payment — Benefit entitlement subject to other eligibility — Appeal allowed and order issued" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt908", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 908 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-16", "docket_number": "2509-06422", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk678", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether subs. 4(1) criteria met at date of the Director’s decision — Onus on Appellant to satisfy Tribunal Director’s decision was wrong, subs. 23(10) — Definition in subs. 4(1) applied to medical and testimonial record — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment — Medical evidence — Meaning of “substantial” informed by Gray and Crane — Cumulative assessment of depressive disorder, anxiety, attention deficit, consistent with substantial impairment — Treatment, medications, psychiatrist involvement, and moderate IEWS ratings accepted — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Whether direct and cumulative effect caused substantial restriction in workplace — Contextual approach from Gallier applied to Appellant’s situation — Limited hours, demotion, concentration and memory problems supported workplace restriction — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Medical review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set for this disability determination — Appellant’s age and continued efforts at treatment suggest impairments may improve — Review date appropriate notwithstanding current substantial findings — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt907", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 907 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-16", "docket_number": "2509-06388", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk672", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Verification — Mandatory verification under s. 4(1)(c), Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Whether prescribed professional verified impairments, duration and restrictions — Cumming, mandatory verification confirmed, Sandiford, scope limited to existence, duration, restriction — Lay testimony and self-report insufficient to replace verification — Verification by treating physician through HSR and scales accepted — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Substantial impairment — Did the Appellant establish a substantial impairment under s. 4(1)(a)? — Gray, flexible meaning of “substantial” consistent with Act’s purpose — Crane, separate tests with evidentiary overlap — Depression, ADHD and stimulant use disorder cumulatively substantial on medical evidence and testimony — Noncompliance linked to verified insight and judgment deficits — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Substantial restriction — Whether impairments resulted in substantial restriction in workplace functioning under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier, assessment in context of the person’s situation — ADL Index and testimony show inability to meet attendance and reliability expectations — PSW work demands incompatible with symptoms and limitations — Substantial restriction in workplace functioning found — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP administration — Review date — Was a review date appropriate under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Review required unless impairment not likely to improve — Evidence of ongoing treatment and recent progress supports time-limited determination — Four-year medical review date set to reassess substantiality — Disability determination maintained with scheduled reassessment — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt906", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 906 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-16", "docket_number": "2509-06516", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk67l", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works — Overpayments — Whether the Administrator correctly established and calculated an overpayment due to undeclared employment income — Late reporting of employment income found — Rights and responsibilities document signed, monthly reporting duty — Overpayment for June 2024 to June 2025 validated — Ontario Works Act 1997, ss. 7, 14, 19, 20, 21 — Decision to assess overpayment affirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery and collection — Discretion to recover — Whether overpayment should be made non-collectible due to administrative error or financial hardship — No administrative error found — Financial circumstances not aligned with severe financial distress — Broad discretion to recover considered under Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 — Recovery arrangements available — Request to write off overpayment refused | Procedure — Appeals to tribunal — Onus — Ontario Works Act 1997, s. 28(11) — Who bears the onus to show the Administrator’s decision is wrong — Appellant bears onus on balance of probabilities — Submissions and sworn testimony considered — Burden not met — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt905", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 905 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-16", "docket_number": "2509-06504", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk67g", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — ODSPA s. 4(1) definition — Whether impairments and restrictions were substantial — Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane considered on “substantial” — Conservative treatment, IEWS and ADLI ratings inconsistent with substantial findings — Cumulative effect not meeting threshold — Language and familial factors not determinative under s. 4(1)(b) — Appeal denied, Director’s decision affirmed | Procedure — Tribunal process — Disability application completeness — Whether earlier HSR versions could be accepted — Section 1 must be completed by a prescribed medical professional — Earlier applications with mixed handwriting and missing ADLI rejected — Final physician‑signed HSR accepted, clinical notes from confirmed professionals considered — Scope of record clarified — Earlier HSR versions rejected, clinical notes accepted | Evidence — Burden and weight — ODSPA s. 23(10) onus — Did the appellant meet balance of probabilities? — Inconsistencies between testimony and documentary record — Greater weight ascribed to physician reports and diagnostic assessments — Jemiolo on treatment and activity level applied — Impairments not proven substantial on material evidence — Appeal dismissed for failure to meet onus" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt891", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 891 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-16", "docket_number": "2509-06274", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk64q", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) criteria applied — Whether the Appellant meets the definition of “person with a disability” — Direct and cumulative effect on activities of daily living assessed — Workplace function substantially restricted — Director’s contrary decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Substantial impairment — Meaning of “substantial” in s. 4(1)(a) considered — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Evidence of pain, migraines, depression, anxiety, PTSD, chronic fatigue — Intellectual and Emotional Wellness Scale findings weighed — Substantial impairments found at the decision date — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Tribunal — Onus and standard — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Medical verification and Appellant’s credible testimony accepted — Activities of Daily Living Index ratings corroborative — Balance of probabilities met — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Administration of benefits — Review dates — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Young appellant with potential improvement through treatment — Review mechanism engaged despite current eligibility — Timing calibrated to impairment trajectory — Review date set three years from order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt890", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 890 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-16", "docket_number": "2509-06275", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk64r", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Suspension — Whether suspension for failure to provide information was justified — Duty to report income, assets, and changes acknowledged — Administrator’s requests outstanding, reasonable time given — Application of s. 7 of the Act and s. 14, O. Reg 134/98 — Onus under s. 28(11) not met — Appeal of suspension denied | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Assessment and recovery — Were overpayments correctly assessed under s. 19 of the Act? — Unreported employment income and undeclared assets found — Income and expenses not aligning with bank deposits — Ongoing eligibility not established — Onus under s. 28(11) of the Act not discharged — Overpayment decisions affirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery — Discretion — Should recovery be deferred or forgone due to hardship? — Tribunal guided by Surdivall v Ontario Disability Support Program, 2014 ONCA 240 (CanLII) — Individual circumstances considered, financial hardship accepted — Overpayment not caused by administrative error — Broad but reasonable discretion applied — Recovery deferred six months, appeal granted in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt889", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 889 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-16", "docket_number": "2509-06184", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk645", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 at the date of the Director’s decision — Guidance from Gray and Crane on “substantial” and three-part test — Onus under s. 23(10) satisfied — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Verification — Were the impairments, duration, and restrictions verified by a person with prescribed qualifications under s. 4(1)(c)? — Requirement in Cumming mandatory — Scope of verification per Sandiford — Family doctor’s HSR and supplementary certificate accepted — Verification established | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Substantial restriction — Do substantial impairments result in a substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b)? — Contextual approach in Gallier — Evidence of limited sitting, standing, walking, lifting, pace and breaks — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Medical review — Should a medical review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Decision maker satisfied impairment may improve — Appellant exploring treatment options — Review period calibrated to potential change — Medical review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt869", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 869 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-16", "docket_number": "2508-05997", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk63d", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — s. 4(1) ODSPA definition applied — Did the Appellant meet s. 4(1) definition at the date of decision? — Gray v. Director and Crane v. Director considered — Verified continuous or recurrent impairments and substantial impairment found — Onus under s. 23(10) discharged — Appeal granted, decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Activities of daily living — Substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace — Gallier considered — ADL Index ratings and credible testimony accepted — Direct and cumulative effect of coronary artery disease and left knee pain — Ordinary attendance and performance expectations not met — Substantial restriction established | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — Whether to set a review date under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Impairment not likely to improve assessed — Appellant’s age and future knee surgery considered — Review appropriate despite current substantial impairment — Review date set for two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt868", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 868 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-16", "docket_number": "2508-05967", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk637", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works — Eligibility and overpayments — Was the decision to assess an overpayment correct — O Reg 134/98, s. 9 full‑time attendance and s. 13(2)(b) duty to pursue OSAP — Ontario Works Act, 1997, s. 19(1) definition of overpayment — Failure to apply for OSAP not a reasonable excuse — Ineligibility while in school confirmed — Overpayment decision upheld — Appeal partly allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works — Overpayment calculation — Was the overpayment correctly calculated for the relevant period — Monthly basic needs and shelter rate of $733 applied — Seven months from September to March totalling $5,131 — No alternative calculations proven on balance of probabilities under s. 28(11) — Calculation methodology accepted — Amount of overpayment confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works — Recovery discretion — Should recovery be reduced or delayed due to administrative error and hardship — Surdivall v. Ontario, 2014 ONCA 240 applied to broad discretion — Caseworker awareness and failure to follow up established administrative error — Financial hardship not at Surdivall threshold — Recovery reduced by 50 per cent and delayed 12 months — Overpayment reduced and recovery postponed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt850", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 850 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-16", "docket_number": "2508-05650", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk62s", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” under ODSPA s. 4(1) — Verification of impairments, duration and restrictions by prescribed professional — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions affecting function in a workplace — Evidence from HSR, IEWS, ADLI and Form 5 accepted — Appeal granted, decision rescinded, income support ordered with no set review date | Statutory interpretation — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Meaning of “substantial” — Interpretation of “substantial” impairments and restrictions under s. 4(1) — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Flexible, contextual assessment focused on the whole person and activities of daily living — Tribunal satisfied thresholds met — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt849", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 849 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-16", "docket_number": "2508-05538", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk62l", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Evidence — Administrative tribunals — New medical evidence — Subsection 64(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Whether new medical evidence could be considered if it related to the Appellant’s condition at the date of the Director’s decision — Omar and Jemiolo applied to timing of evidence — Reports expressly relating back accepted — New medical evidence considered | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial impairment — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(a) — Whether the Appellant had substantial impairments within the meaning of s. 4(1)(a) — Generalized Anxiety Disorder with panic symptoms and Migraine verified — Pharmacotherapy, service dog, neurologist referral indicating uncontrolled symptoms — Cumulative lens applied — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial restriction — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(b) — Whether the Appellant was substantially restricted in the ability to function in a workplace — Limitations with multitasking, deadlines, tasks that cannot be suddenly abandoned — IEWS and ADLI narratives considered — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review of eligibility — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a medical review date should be set — Impairments may improve to permit full-time work — Decision maker not satisfied impairment is not likely to improve — Review date set for reassessment — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt831", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 831 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-16", "docket_number": "2505-03268", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk624", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of disability — ODSP Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Did the appellant meet the statutory criteria at the date of the Director’s decision? — Guidance from Gray and Crane on “substantial” applied — Continuous or recurrent impairments verified and expected to last one year or more — Appeal granted, decision rescinded, income support ordered | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Substantial restriction — Whether impairments caused substantial restriction in personal care and workplace function — Gallier considered on person‑specific assessment — Severe ADL and IEWS ratings aligned with testimony — Physical and cognitive limitations precluded reasonable physical or sedentary employment — Substantial restriction found | Evidence — Disability entitlement — Medical and lay evidence — What weight to give family physician documentation and sworn testimony? — HSR, IEWS, ADLI and medication history reviewed — Consistency, duration of care and corroboration enhanced reliability — Historical records afforded limited weight but supported credibility — Evidence sufficient to establish substantial impairment and restriction | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanism — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set despite current disability finding? — Ongoing treatment, counselling and medication management considered — Potential for improvement identified given age and access to therapies — Review date set for two years from order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt830", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 830 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-16", "docket_number": "2506-04286", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk625", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of “person with a disability” — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) criteria at the date of the Director’s decision — Guidance from Gray and Crane on “substantial” and separate tests — Verified impairments assessed against activities of daily living — Thresholds of substantiality not met — Appeal denied, Director’s decision affirmed | Evidence — Verification — Medical evidence sufficiency — Whether medical documentation verified substantial impairments and restrictions under s. 4(1) — Family physician’s DDP, IEWS and ADLI ratings inconsistent with testimony — Absence of psychiatric reports, limited clinical findings, vague treatment history — Tribunal prefers realistic testimony on daily activities but finds proof lacking — Appeal dismissed | Procedure — Burden of proof — Onus — Application of s. 23(10) ODSPA — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Weight of testimony versus clinical evidence, reliability of timelines and treatment history — Evidence vague and limited, no substitution for qualified clinical records — Appeal dismissed | Procedure — Evidence on appeal — Temporal scope — Whether post‑decision medical developments or unverified conditions can be considered — Reliance on Omar regarding re‑application where conditions worsen or new evidence arises — Unverified lung and hand issues excluded, later psychiatric material not before Tribunal — Re‑application suggested, current appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt829", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 829 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-16", "docket_number": "2503-01890R", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk61s", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Disability definition — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) ODSPA at the date of decision — Substantial impairment assessed using IEWS and medical records — Substantial restriction in activities of daily living and workplace functioning — Authorities applied, Gray, Crane, Gallier, Jemiolo — Onus under s. 23(10) met — Appeal granted | Evidence — Administrative tribunals — Late evidence — Whether late medical report should be admitted under s. 65 of O. Reg. 222/98 — Similar to prior report and not tied to date of decision — New conditions not properly verified — Tribunal exercised discretion to refuse admission — Evidence refused | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP administration — Review date — Whether a review date should be set under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Consideration of age and ongoing treatment — Impairment may improve — Review schedule appropriate in circumstances — Review date set | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed professional — Whether impairment, duration and restrictions were verified under s. 4(1)(c) ODSPA — Health Status Report completed by psychotherapist with prescribed qualifications — ADL Index and IEWS ratings corroborated — Supplementary family doctor chart confirmed impairments and restrictions — Verification established" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt819", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 819 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-16", "docket_number": "2508-05654", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk62t", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability under s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Onus under s. 23(10) met — Medical verification accepted — Director’s refusal overturned — Income support payable under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairments — Mental health — Whether Major Depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder are “substantial” impairments under s. 4(1)(a) — Guidance applied from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — IEWS ratings and treatment evidence considered — Continuous symptoms found — Substantial impairments established | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial restrictions — Workplace functioning — Whether the direct and cumulative effect results in a substantial restriction in the ability to function in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b) — Contextual assessment per Director, ODSP v. Gallier — Sleep disturbance, concentration deficit, social withdrawal — Retraining or suitable employment unsustainable — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Whether impairments, duration and restrictions were properly verified under s. 4(1)(c) — Disability Determination Package and physician evidence accepted — Continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year or more — Verification satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a medical review date where impairments may improve — Ongoing treatment and pending medication changes noted — Decision maker satisfied a review is appropriate — Review set for three years from the Order date — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt918", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 918 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-13", "docket_number": "2509-06428", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk679", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP — Disability definition — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” under s. 4(1) — Substantial impairment assessed flexibly per Gray and Crane — Neuropathy and neck pain found substantial — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Activities of daily living evidence weighed — Director’s determination overturned — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP — Medical verification — Whether impairments, duration and restrictions were verified by a prescribed professional under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report completed by physician accepted — EMG and imaging history corroborative — Treatment and medications considered under Jemiolo — Verification requirements satisfied — Disability status recognised | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP — Review — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Prognosis recorded as unknown — Pending neurology referral noted — Potential for improvement considered — Review date appropriate — Two‑year review ordered | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP — Appeals — Whether the Appellant met the onus under s. 23(10) to show the Director’s decision was wrong — Totality of medical evidence and testimony accepted — Activities of Daily Living Index supports restriction — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Director’s decision rescinded — Income support payable if otherwise eligible under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Appeal allowed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt917", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 917 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-13", "docket_number": "2509-06441", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk67c", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of “person with a disability” — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant’s impairments and restrictions were substantial at the time of the Director’s decision — Cumulative effect on personal care, community and workplace assessed — Medical records and testimony considered — Substantial thresholds not met — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(c) — Were impairments, likely duration and restrictions verified by a person with prescribed qualifications? — Health Status Report and Activities of Daily Living Index reviewed — Weight given to family physician encounter notes — Second ADLI given less weight — Decision affirmed | Evidence — Onus and weight — Credibility — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Did the Appellant satisfy the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong? — Testimony found not convincing and internally inconsistent — Dated imaging given less weight — Family physician encounter notes preferred — Mental health evidence insufficient — Appeal dismissed | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits — Meaning of “substantial” — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — How should “substantial” impairments and restrictions be interpreted? — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario considered — Flexible, contextual assessment of whole person applied — Separate tests under s. 4(1) analysed — Decision affirmed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt904", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 904 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-13", "docket_number": "2509-06323", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk66s", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Procedure — Jurisdiction — Internal review prerequisite — Does the file review amount to an internal review to confer jurisdiction? — Late internal review request considered — Letter acknowledging a review for calculation errors — Person with authority reviewed the file — Tribunal satisfied review met internal review requirement — Appeal proceeds on hardship only — Tribunal has jurisdiction | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Validity and calculation — Was the overpayment validly assessed and correctly calculated under the Ontario Works Act? — Overpayment based on ineligibility for entire assistance period — No dispute on assessment or amount — Administrator’s May decision accepted — Appeal granted in part — Overpayment confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery — Hardship and discretion — Should recovery be delayed due to financial hardship? — Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 applied — Balancing hardship with accountability to taxpayers — Financial hardship not “enormous” — No reduction of amount — Recovery postponed to allow employment prospects — Recovery delayed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt903", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 903 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-13", "docket_number": "2509-06276", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk66l", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant met the definition of “person with a disability” — Guidance applied from Gray and Crane on “substantial” — Onus under ODSPA s. 23(10) met — Director’s assessment of substantiality rejected — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Verification — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(c) — Were impairments, likely duration, and restrictions verified by a prescribed professional? — Health Status Report completed by physician accepted — MRI findings corroborative — Use of cane and medication noted — Evidence of continuity and duration credited — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Whether substantial restrictions in workplace function established — Gallier considered on person-specific context — Severe limitations in mobility, sitting, standing and stair climbing found — Pain levels, medication response, and ADLI ratings weighed — Physical and sedentary work unreasonable — Substantial restriction in workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where ongoing treatment may improve impairments? — Neurosurgery consultation pending — Tribunal not satisfied impairment is unlikely to improve — Review mechanism engaged to reassess disability status — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt887", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 887 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-13", "docket_number": "2509-06229", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk64d", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) ODSPA at the Director’s decision date — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction in workplace functioning — Credible testimony and HSR corroboration — Onus under s. 23(10) satisfied — Decision of Director rescinded — Appeal granted | Evidence — Late evidence — New medical evidence after Director’s decision — Should late‑filed pain clinic letter be accepted under O. Reg. 222/98 ss. 64, 65 — Prejudice balanced and contextual use only — EMG findings predating decision referenced — Evidence admitted despite lateness — Considered with limited weight — Evidence accepted | Evidence — Weight of evidence — Medical forms and narratives — What weight to give ADL Index versus physician narrative and credible testimony — Sparse and inconsistent ADL entries — Physician narrative, Appellant’s detailed testimony, and corroborating testimony preferred — Workplace limitations supported — Reduced weight for ADL Index — Weight adjusted | Pensions and social benefits — Reviews — Review date — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98 s. 5(1) where impairments may improve — Active pain management and investigations ongoing — Improvement possible — Satisfied a review date is appropriate — One‑year review date fixed — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt867", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 867 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-13", "docket_number": "2508-05988", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk639", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant met both substantial impairment and substantial restriction thresholds — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Mental health impairments found substantial — Substantial restriction in ability to function in the workplace established — Decision of the Director rescinded — Appeal granted | Procedure — Tribunal discretion — Late evidence and adjournment — O. Reg. 222/98, ss. 64, 65 — Whether late “new medical evidence” should be admitted and the hearing adjourned — Limited relevance and minimal prejudice assessed — Opportunity to cross examine considered — Hearing proceeded and employer letter accepted after hearing — Adjournment refused, evidence admitted | Evidence — Verification requirements — Medical evidence — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(c) — Whether impairments, duration and restrictions were properly verified by a person with prescribed qualifications — HSR and IEWS by family physician accepted — Unverified conditions disregarded — Weight given to proximity and relevance to date of decision — Verified impairments considered, unverified disregarded | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set where impairments may improve — Appellant’s age, medication changes and treatment efforts considered — Possibility of improvement with further therapy noted — Review date fixed one year from the order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt851", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 851 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-13", "docket_number": "2508-05641", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk62r", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the appellant met s. 4(1) definition at the time of the Director’s decision — Guidance from Gray v. Director, 2002 CanLII 7805 and Crane, 2006 CanLII 38348 — Substantiality assessed on totality of evidence, cumulative impairments — Onus under s. 23(10) met — Appeal granted, decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Verification — Were impairments, duration, and restrictions verified by a person with prescribed qualifications under s. 4(1)(c) of the Act? — Health Status Report and Medical Opinion by family physician accepted — Epilepsy and mental health disorders verified as continuous or recurrent — Verification established | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Activities of daily living — Did substantial impairments result in substantial restriction in workplace function under s. 4(1)(b)? — Tribunal entitled to assess applicant in own context per Gallier, 2000 CanLII 49294 — Appellant unable to engage in employment without substantial restrictions — Workplace function substantially restricted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP administration — Review date — Should a medical review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Ongoing treatment and some improvement noted — Decision maker satisfied a review is appropriate — Review date set for one year — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible under s. 17 of O. Reg. 222/98 — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt848", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 848 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-13", "docket_number": "2508-05537", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk62k", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Interpretation of “substantial” informed by Gray and Crane — Medical verification by prescribed professionals — Continuous or recurrent impairments established — Onus under s. 23(10) satisfied — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Substantial restriction in workplace — Do cumulative impairments substantially restrict workplace functioning under s. 4(1)(b)? — Evidence of fatigue, weakness, anxiety, attendance limits — Workplace accommodations and missed shifts assessed — HSR narratives preferred over inconsistent ADLI entries — Gallier context applied — Substantial workplace restriction found — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP review — Review date — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Potential for improvement with treatment considered — Physiotherapy and counselling contemplated — Decision maker satisfied impairments may improve — Review scheduled two years from order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt847", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 847 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-13", "docket_number": "2508-05580", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk62p", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Definition of person with a disability — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Is the Appellant a person with a disability at the date of the Director’s decision? — Gray and Crane applied to substantial impairment analysis — Verified low back and neck pain impairments found cumulatively substantial — Onus under s. 23(10) met — Appeal granted, person with a disability found | Evidence — New medical evidence — Temporal relevance — Omar and Jemiolo considered — Can post‑decision medical reports be considered where they relate to the condition at the decision date? — Presumption that reports speak as of their date addressed — GP letter correcting duration, A‑ADLI and employment opinion expressly tied to decision date — Additional reports admitted and relied upon | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Do substantial impairments result in substantial restriction in workplace function? — OT observations and Appellant’s testimony accepted over inconsistent A‑ADLI scores — Standing, walking, sitting, housekeeping and meal preparation limited — Sedentary employment and retraining unreasonable despite accommodation — Substantial restriction in workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for a disability determination? — Decision maker satisfied impairment may improve — Review appropriate given potential return to full‑time work — Timeline fixed consistent with regulation — Review date set for two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt839", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 839 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-13", "docket_number": "2507-04902", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk627", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant qualifies under s. 4(1) at the time of the Director’s decision — Verification by physician with prescribed qualifications — Cumulative impact of mental health and physical conditions assessed — Tribunal satisfied Appellant is a person with a disability — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction — Meaning of “substantial” under s. 4(1) informed by Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — IEWS and ADLI ratings persuasive of severe limitations — Workplace functioning substantially restricted per Gallier — Whether impairments and restrictions meet statutory thresholds — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction found — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set given potential improvement with treatment? — Post-decision evidence considered for ongoing nature and treatment prospects — Decision maker not satisfied impairments unlikely to improve — Review date set for three years | Pensions and social benefits — Onus — ODSPA, subs. 23(10) — Has the Appellant shown the Director’s decision was wrong? — Consistent and reliable testimony corroborated by Health Status Report and DDP — Physician’s longitudinal knowledge preferred over initial psychiatric assessment — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt828", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 828 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-13", "docket_number": "2503-01568", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk61r", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility and suspension — Failure to provide information — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, subs. 5(1), 9(1), O. Reg. 222/98, s. 12 — Whether suspension for missing shelter verification and RRSP verification was correct — Guidance from Rea v. Simcoe applied to core information — Ongoing eligibility documentation not provided — Suspension confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Administration of benefits — Effective date of suspension — Information request letter set deadline of February 21, 2025 — Was suspension effective January 22, 2025 unreasonable given stated deadline? — Director failed to abide by its own timeline — Documentary record supports later date — Effective date adjusted to February 21, 2025 | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus of proof — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, subs. 23(10) — Did the Appellant show the Director’s decision was wrong? — Sworn testimony and submissions reviewed — No documentary verification of shelter costs and RRSP income provided — Onus not discharged on balance of probabilities — Appeal granted in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt916", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 916 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-12", "docket_number": "2509-06717", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk687", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Medical transportation benefits — Whether the Director correctly discontinued ongoing medical transportation benefits in late 2025 — Evidence of undated determination and cessation as of 30 November or December 2025 — Text messages and subsequent letter considered — Director’s decision found incorrect and rescinded — Payments for withheld medical travel ordered within 30 days — Appeal granted | Administrative law — Tribunal jurisdiction — Mootness and internal review — Does the Tribunal retain jurisdiction despite a subsequent “renewal” letter and uncertainty regarding internal review? — New letter dated 16 January 2026 not a new determination — Attempt to retroactively justify earlier decision rejected — “No Order” request refused — Tribunal retained jurisdiction | Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Notice requirements — Did the failure to provide written notice meeting s. 56 of Reg. 222/98 breach procedural fairness? — No written decision with effective date, reasons, and internal review information — Fundamental legislative breach affecting vulnerable recipient — Natural justice not observed — Decision held incorrect on this basis alone — Decision rescinded" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt902", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 902 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-12", "docket_number": "2509-06329", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk66t", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A9", "reasons": [ "A9" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works — Shelter benefits — Whether Administrator correctly assessed overpayment for September and October 2024 — Sublet agreement in municipal subsidized housing — Appellant not a permitted tenant, no rent requirement — Shelter funding issued when not entitled — Overpayment calculation of $780 upheld — Decisions not incorrect as of October 7, 2024 — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works — Eligibility — Whether denial of ongoing shelter benefits effective November 2024 was correct — No recognized shelter expenses where Appellant not a tenant — Information provided in Appellant’s primary language — Difficulties securing accommodation and insufficiency of assistance not determinative — Decision to withhold shelter benefits confirmed — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Relief from recovery — Whether overpayment should be reduced or deemed not collectible — Discretion to vary recovery considered in Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 — Limited income alone insufficient — No exceptional circumstances shown — Remaining balance minimal — Recovery not varied — Appeal denied | Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Late submissions — Whether late filing of Administrator’s submissions compromised fairness — Rule 4.5 reply window exceeded but contents known to Appellant — Oral presentation of position, Appellant elected to proceed — No material impact on outcome or fairness — Hearing fairness maintained — Appeal denied" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt901", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 901 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-12", "docket_number": "2509-06292", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk66p", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP overpayments — Assessment and calculation — Whether the overpayment was validly assessed and correctly calculated — Change of family status, board and lodging, and non-exempt income identified — Dependent’s schooling status adjusted, partial reversal applied — Revised overpayment confirmed for specified period — Appeal granted in part, overpayment valid and amount correctly calculated | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery and discretion — Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program) — Should recovery be reduced given administrative error, innocent mistake, and financial hardship? — Caseworker’s incurious approach found a small administrative error — Limited innocent mistake and modest hardship accepted — Accountability to taxpayers balanced with support objectives — Recovery reduced to $10000 | Pensions and social benefits — Reporting obligations — Ontario Disability Support Program Regulation, subs. 12(1) — Effect of duty to report income on recovery — Positive obligation to report all income, including dependent’s employment — Rights and Responsibilities forms acknowledged — Failure to report despite tax filings and employment letter — Recovery proceeded notwithstanding reporting lapses — Appeal granted in part, recovery maintained with reduction" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt886", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 886 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-12", "docket_number": "2509-06180", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk643", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Definition of disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) at the date of decision — Interpretation guided by Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Director, ODSP — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction thresholds applied — Credible testimony and medical record aligned — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Verification — Was s. 4(1)(c) satisfied by a prescribed professional? — Mandatory verification affirmed in Director, ODSP v. Cumming — Scope of verification per Sandiford v. Director, ODSP — Health Status Report and supplementary certificate accepted — Decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Activities of daily living — Did cumulative impairments cause substantial workplace restriction under s. 4(1)(b)? — Applicant assessed in own context per Gallier — ADL Index severe and moderate limitations noted — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Income support ordered under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP administration — Review date — Should a medical review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Potential for improvement with treatment considered — Satisfaction that impairment may improve over time — Four‑year medical review date fixed — Medical review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt883", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 883 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-12", "docket_number": "2509-06217", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk64c", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Calculation of income — Whether the Director correctly assessed and quantified ODSP overpayments — Application of O. Reg. 222/98, s. 38 to employment earnings, $1,000 full exemption and 25% partial exemption — Lack of monthly calculations — Proper overpayment fixed at $3,340.61 for January 2024 to January 2025 — Overpayment amount confirmed | Administrative law — Reasons and procedural fairness — Adequacy of reasons — Did the Director’s decisions and submissions meet natural justice and O. Reg. 222/98, s. 56 and s. 62 — Overlapping and inconsistent decisions, no calculations, inability to validate amounts — Prima facie case not established — Later recalculated overpayment decision rescinded — Decisions rescinded | Administrative law — Appeals — Onus — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 23(10) — Who bears the onus and was it discharged — Appellant’s reporting efforts and evidence accepted — Director failed to show work sufficient to permit assessment — Statutory onus met in part regarding impugned decisions — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Remedies — Rescission and repayment — What remedial orders are appropriate on ODSP appeal — 4 June 2025 overpayment upheld and fully paid — 18 April 2025, 4 July 2025 and 18 November 2025 decisions rescinded — Excess amounts collected to be repaid forthwith, excluding $3,340.61 paid — Appeal granted in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt879", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 879 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-12", "docket_number": "2509-06046", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk63k", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works Act — OSAP income and overpayment — Whether OSAP funding is income for the study period — Application of s. 48(3) of O. Reg. 134/98 to months intended — Exemptions under ss. 54(1)(iii), 54(2.1) not established — Subsection 7(3) eligibility and budgetary requirements — Overpayment calculation upheld — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — Benefit unit — Removal of dependent — Whether removing FM from the benefit unit effective March 31, 2025, was correct — Contemporaneous caseworker note preferred over inconsistent testimony — Reporting that FM moved out “since Ramadan” considered — Internal review request noting end of May weighed — Decision to remove dependent affirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery — Restriction on recovery — Whether financial hardship or administrative error warrants a restriction on recovery — Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program) considered on flexibility — Delay in reporting OSAP application found to have caused overpayment — Financial hardship not established on evidence — Recovery terms unchanged | Procedure — Onus — Burden under tribunal statute — Whether the Appellants discharged the onus under subsection 28(11) of the Ontario Works Act — Tribunal considered all available evidence and submissions — Greater weight given to OSAP Information Summary — Appellants not satisfying burden to show Administrator wrong — Appeal dismissed and decision affirmed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt878", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 878 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-12", "docket_number": "2509-06066", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk63m", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition, person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1), three-part test applied — Onus on Appellant under ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Whether Appellant met statutory definition at date of Director’s decision — Tribunal satisfied requirements in paras. (a) to (c) met — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Impairments — Substantiality under s. 4(1)(a) — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario considered — Cumulative assessment of diabetic neuropathy, degenerative meniscus, metabolic syndrome — Whether impairments were substantial and uncontrolled despite treatment — Credible testimony and HSR, IEWS, ADLI relied on — Substantial impairments found | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier applied to assess Appellant in own situation — Whether substantial impairments caused substantial workplace restriction — Standing less than five minutes, mobility under 100 metres, reliance on scooter — Evidence from Nurse Practitioner and testimony accepted — Substantial workplace restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Reviews and reassessments — Review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether impairment likely to improve — Ongoing treatment, physiotherapy, medication, referral for knee scraping considered — Prospects of improvement justify time-limited determination — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Review date set in five years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt858", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 858 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-12", "docket_number": "2508-05704", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk62z", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction assessed at time of decision — Activities of daily living, personal care, community and workplace functioning analysed — Medical records and testimony reviewed — Decision of Director affirmed — Appeal denied | Evidence — Medical evidence — Assessment and weight — Did the Health Status Report, ADLI, IEWS, imaging and respirology findings establish substantiality? — Limited recent specialist documentation and treatment considered relevant per Jemiolo — Sparks cautions against inferring non‑substantiality from lack of treatment — Testimony found insufficiently persuasive — Insufficient corroboration of substantial impairment — Appeal dismissed | Statutory interpretation — Definition — ODSPA, s. 4(1) and onus under s. 23(10) — Meaning of “substantial” and separate tests in paras. (a) and (b) — Whether both thresholds must be met — Gray and Crane applied, flexible approach and whole‑person context — Overlap of evidence permitted but onus not discharged — Threshold of substantiality not met — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt845", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 845 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-12", "docket_number": "2508-05481", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk62f", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Did the Appellant meet the statutory definition at the date of the Director’s decision? — Guidance in Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane applied — HSR, psychiatric assessment, IEWS, and credible testimony weighed — Flexible meaning of “substantial” adopted — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(a) — Whether impairments from Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder were substantial — Totality of evidence approach, including medications, treatment, activity limitations, IEWS ratings — Overlap between impairment and function recognised per Crane — Substantial impairments found on balance of probabilities — Finding of substantial impairment confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial restriction — Workplace function — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(b) — Did the direct and cumulative effect of impairments substantially restrict workplace functioning? — Reliance on Gray and Gallier regarding real‑life context — Disturbed sleep, social anxiety, communication difficulties assessed — ADLI ratings considered but not determinative — Substantial workplace restriction established | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for a person found disabled? — Age and commitment to treatment considered — Potential for improvement identified — Review date set three years from the Order — Income support to be paid if otherwise eligible — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt837", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 837 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-12", "docket_number": "2504-02787", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk622", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) criteria applied — Are the Appellant’s impairments and restrictions “substantial” at the decision date — Guidance from Gray and Crane considered — Learning disability, depression and anxiety found cumulatively substantial — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Procedure — Capacity — Participation in hearing — Presumption of capacity under SBT Rules A10.2 — Did the Appellant have capacity to testify and instruct a representative — Interpreter confirmed, affirmation understood, questions rephrased to ensure comprehension — No litigation guardian required — Capacity to participate and testify confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairments may improve — Age and ongoing treatment efforts considered — Post‑decision evidence used to inform ongoing nature and review planning — Review scheduled for reassessment — Review date set | Evidence — Weight — Temporal relevance of records — How should medical evidence predating or post‑dating the Director’s decision be weighed — Limited weight to non‑contemporaneous materials — Post‑decision records considered for credibility and ongoing nature and to inform review date — Contemporaneous family physician and psychiatric evidence given significant weight — Limited weight to post‑decision evidence" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt826", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 826 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-12", "docket_number": "2504-02785", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk621", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Is the Appellant a “person with a disability” at the time of the Director’s decision? — Health Status Report, IEWS and ADLI assessed — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction established — Director’s decision rescinded — Income support to be paid under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Interpretation — “Substantial” impairment and restriction — Meaning of “substantial” under s. 4(1) considered — Flexible, individualized approach applied per Gray and Crane — Cumulative effect on personal care, community and workplace examined — Applicant considered in own situation per Gallier — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Evidence and treatment — Limited documentation and non‑adherence — Does failure to pursue treatment or limited records bar eligibility? — Fear of medications and imaging, agoraphobia and amotivation considered — No adverse inference drawn — IEWS and ADLI consistent with testimony — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set and for how long? — Appellant’s age and ongoing recommendations to pursue treatment noted — Reasonable potential impairments may no longer be substantial — Review date of three years appropriate — Review date set for three years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt897", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 897 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-11", "docket_number": "2509-06320", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk64v", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Did the Appellant meet the substantial impairment and substantial restriction thresholds at the date of the Director’s decision — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied, Gallier considered — Mental health conditions found cumulatively substantial — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Onus under s. 23(10) satisfied — Appeal granted | Procedure — Tribunal discretion — Late new medical evidence — O. Reg. 222/98, ss. 64, 65 — Should evidence filed just short of the time limit be accepted — Relevance to the date of decision assessed — Prejudice to Appellant if excluded, none to Director — Evidence admitted and weight addressed — Evidence admitted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(c) — Were impairments, duration and restrictions verified by persons with prescribed qualifications — Family doctor and psychologist verified mental health conditions and restrictions — No verification of heart attack impairments or duration — Unverified impairments disregarded under the Act — Verified conditions considered — Unverified impairments excluded | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for a determination of disability — Age and continued efforts at treatment considered — Possibility of improvement in impairments and restrictions noted — Review date fixed to reassess disability status — Review date set for one year" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt896", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 896 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-11", "docket_number": "2509-06341", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk650", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) definition at the time of the Director’s decision — Verified impairments and restrictions assessed — Medical evidence of weight loss and back pain examined — Whole person analysis not persuasive — Impairments not substantial — Both substantial thresholds not met — Appeal denied | Procedure — Onus — ODSPA appeals — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal under s. 23(10) that the Director’s decision was wrong — Assessment focused on the time of the Director’s decision — Medical management and documentation considered — Onus not discharged — Decision of the Director affirmed | Statutory interpretation — ODSPA s. 4(1) — Meaning of substantial — Interpretation of “substantial” impairment and “substantial restriction” — Guidance from Gray v. Director, Ontario Disability Support Program and Crane v. Ontario (Disability Support Program) — Flexible meaning tied to purposes of the Act — Three separate tests requiring separate analysis — Substantiality not established — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt895", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 895 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-11", "docket_number": "2509-06239", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk64h", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — Whether Appellant meets s. 4(1) criteria — Verification of impairments and restrictions accepted — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction both required — Activities of daily living assessed at Director’s decision date — Tribunal not satisfied Appellant is a person with a disability — Decision of Director affirmed — Appeal denied | Evidence — Medical and psychotherapy records — Weight of contemporaneous clinical notes — Do psychotherapy records undermine testimony of substantial impairment? — Records show active community functioning with children — ADLI ratings not suggestive of substantial impairment — Medications and treatment considered cumulatively — Onus not discharged under s. 23(10) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Decision affirmed | Statutory interpretation — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Meaning of substantial — Interpretation of substantial impairment and restriction — Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Flexible meaning tied to individual circumstances — Separate tests for paras. 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) recognised — Both thresholds must be met — Statutory test not satisfied — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt877", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 877 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-11", "docket_number": "2509-06023", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk63h", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Is the Appellant a person with a disability? — Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane applied to substantiality — Director’s finding of no substantial impairment rejected — HSR, IEWS, ADLI and credible testimony accepted — Person with a disability confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairments and restrictions — Workplace functioning — Did substantial impairments result in a substantial restriction in workplace at the date of decision? — Gallier applied to assess activities of daily living in personal context — Jemiolo considered on treatment evidence, pharmacotherapy not determinative — Day-to-day coping distinguished from workplace functioning — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set? — Age and continued efforts at treatment offer hope of improvement — Review date appropriate — Income support payable if otherwise eligible under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Director’s decision rescinded — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt857", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 857 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-11", "docket_number": "2508-05759", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk630", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” under s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Continuous or recurrent impairments and substantial restrictions assessed — Director’s decision timeframe applied — Onus on Appellant under s. 23(10) — Appeal denied, decision affirmed | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits legislation — Definition of “substantial” — Meaning of “substantial” impairment and restriction in s. 4(1) considered — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Ontario ODSP v. Crane — Flexible meaning tied to individual circumstances and purposes of the Act — Three separate tests requiring separate analysis — Director’s decision affirmed | Evidence — Disability determination — Medical and testimonial proof — Whether medical evidence and treatment supported substantial impairment at the relevant time — Health Status Report, IEWS and ADLI weighed — Limited treatment and follow up noted, Jemiolo referenced — Imaging and clinic notes not persuasive of substantial impairment — Onus under s. 23(10) not met — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt856", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 856 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-11", "docket_number": "2508-05687", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk62x", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — ODSPA s. 4(1) definition — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability — Continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year or more established — Direct and cumulative effect on personal care demonstrated — Decision of Director rescinded — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Verification and restrictions — Were impairments and substantial restrictions verified by a person with prescribed qualifications as required by s. 4(1)(c)? — Medical evidence, HSR and DDP confirm Cerebral Palsy and hip osteoarthritis — Substantial restrictions in personal care found on totality of evidence — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for the disability determination? — Appellant’s age, desire to improve and ongoing treatment support review — Impairment not fixed as non-improving — Review date two years from order — Review date set | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits — ODSPA s. 4(1) — How should “substantial” be interpreted and applied? — Guidance from Gray and Crane considered — Flexible meaning tied to individual circumstances and purposes of the Act — Overlap of evidence for impairment and restriction recognised — Substantial impairment and restriction established — Appeal allowed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt834", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 834 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-11", "docket_number": "2508-05463", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk62c", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether Appellant is a person with a disability — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Cumulative assessment of medical and testimonial evidence — Director’s decision rescinded and income support ordered under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Definition — Verification — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(c) — Were the impairments, duration and restrictions verified by a prescribed professional? — Nurse practitioner completed HSR and ADLI with prescribed qualifications — Psychiatric consultation noted adjustment disorder with significant mood and anxiety component — Verification found sufficient on balance of probabilities — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Definition — Substantial impairment — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(a) — Did the Appellant have a substantial physical or mental impairment? — Chronic pain syndrome and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression — IEWS moderate ratings and treatment efforts considered with Jemiolo — Flexible, cumulative assessment per Gray and Crane — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Substantial restriction — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(b) — Did impairments cause substantial restriction, particularly workplace functioning, at date of decision? — ADLI ratings with narrative qualifiers, social anxiety, pain limiting standing, walking, lifting — Workplace functioning substantially restricted in any workplace, sedentary or physical — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Review — ODSPA Regulation — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set? — Ongoing treatment efforts and age considered — Post‑decision counselling noted though given little weight for impairment finding — Decision maker not satisfied impairments are not likely to improve — Review date set for one year — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt833", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 833 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-11", "docket_number": "2505-03261", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk623", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability — Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Director, ODSP applied — Totality of evidence assessed including HSR, Medical Questionnaire, imaging, and testimony — Tribunal satisfied definition met at the time of the Director’s decision — Person with a disability confirmed | Procedure — Appeals — Extension of time — Late appeal under Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, subs. 23(2) — Whether there are reasonable grounds for applying for an extension and apparent grounds for an appeal — Appellant intended to continue and made efforts — Respondent had no objection — Extension to file the appeal granted — Extension granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Substantial restriction — Whether verified impairments resulted in a substantial restriction in personal care, community and workplace function under s. 4(1)(b) — Reliance on HSR, IEWS, ADLI, physiotherapy reports and MRI findings — Consistent testimony about lifting, walking, sitting, standing and low mood — Substantial restriction established — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set where impairment may improve — Young age, ongoing treatment with family physician, medication management and other treatment options considered — Decision maker satisfied a review date is appropriate — Review date fixed for one year — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt824", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 824 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-11", "docket_number": "2503-02135", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk61w", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether impairments and restrictions were substantial — Application of Gray v. Director and Crane v. Ontario — Test applied to personal care, community, workplace — Credible testimony and medical evidence accepted — Decision of Director rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Medical evidence — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(c) — Whether impairments, likely duration, and restrictions verified by prescribed professional — Health Status Report, IEWS and ADLI completed by physician — Additional records corroborating continuous or recurrent conditions — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Review of disability determination — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Age and prognosis considered — Tribunal satisfied impairment not likely to improve — No review date set | Pensions and social benefits — Onus of proof — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Whether Appellant satisfied Tribunal that Director’s decision was wrong — Totality of evidence assessed including testimony and medical reports — Burden met — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt913", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 913 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-10", "docket_number": "2510-07524", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk68b", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works — Emergency assistance — Appeal respecting emergency assistance — Whether Tribunal can hear dispute about emergency benefits — Appeal concerns only emergency assistance administered by the Respondent — Hearing previously scheduled — Tribunal not persuaded it has jurisdiction — Appeal dismissed and hearing cancelled | Statutory interpretation — Ontario Works Act, 1997 — s. 26(2) — Does s. 26(2)7 bar an appeal respecting emergency assistance? — Text states no appeal lies to the Tribunal regarding a decision respecting emergency assistance — Provision applied to Appellant’s request for rental arrears — Appeal dismissed | Administrative law — Jurisdiction — Social Benefits Tribunal — Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear an appeal concerning emergency assistance? — Respondent objected to opening of appeal — Tribunal finds decisions respecting emergency assistance clearly outside its jurisdiction — Authority to hear matter denied — Appeal dismissed | Procedure — Summary dismissal — Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, Rule 11 — Was summary dismissal appropriate after notice and opportunity to respond? — Case management ruling issued stating intention to dismiss — Appellant provided 30 days to respond — No further submissions received — Brief written reasons given — Appeal dismissed | Procedure — Case management — Hearing management — Should the scheduled hearing be cancelled following a Rule 11 dismissal? — Appeal dismissed in its entirety pursuant to Rule 11 — Previously scheduled hearing date identified — Hearing cancelled" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt912", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 912 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-10", "docket_number": "2512-09014", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk68c", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works — Residency requirement — Ontario Works Act, 1997, s. 7(1)3 — Whether the Appellant is resident in Ontario — Historical links to Canada do not establish present residency — Online academic residency not sufficient to ground Ontario residency — No reasonable prospect that eligibility claim could succeed — Appeal dismissed | Procedure — Summary decision — Rule 12 of the Social Benefits Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure — Whether summary dismissal appropriate where there is no reasonable prospect of success — Paper hearing on Tribunal’s own initiative — Parties invited to make submissions — Late submissions admitted and considered — Summary disposition justified — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt894", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 894 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-10", "docket_number": "2509-06249", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk64k", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction analysed using Gray and Crane — Activities of daily living and verified impairments considered — Medical records showed mild ADLI limitations — No persuasive evidence of substantial impairment — Appeal denied | Procedure — Onus of proof — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 23(10) — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Balance of probabilities applied per FH v. McDougall — Requirement to establish all three s. 4(1) factors reiterated — Burden not met — Decision affirmed | Evidence — Credibility and weight — Disability determination — How to assess conflicting testimony and medical documentation — Presumption of truth of sworn evidence rebutted by record, citing Buchan — IEWS and ADLI scores contrasted with testimony — Specialist reports limited on symptoms — Testimony found not credible or reliable — Medical evidence not persuasive — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt893", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 893 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-10", "docket_number": "2509-06242", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk64j", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP overpayments — Unreported income — Whether decision to assess an overpayment was correct — OAS Survivor benefit as income under Ontario Regulation 222/98, s. 37(1) — Duty to report income under s. 12(1) of the Regulation — Onus under Ontario Disability Support Program Act, s. 23(1) not met — Appeal dismissed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP overpayments — Calculation — Whether the amount of the overpayment was correct — Budgetary requirements and income of the benefit unit considered under s. 29(1) of Ontario Regulation 222/98 — No evidence of error in calculation — Amount corroborated by Director’s written submissions — Decision affirmed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP overpayments — Recovery and hardship — Whether financial hardship warrants a limit on recovery — Flexibility in collection considered per Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 — Hardship not of such degree to warrant reduction — Family contributions and shared expenses noted — No limit to recovery" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt882", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 882 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-10", "docket_number": "2509-06162", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk63z", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility under s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” — Impairments verified but not substantial — ADLI showed only mild restrictions in housekeeping and laundry — Treatment regime conservative, stable Fluoxetine 10mg — Oral testimony inconsistent with medical records — Decision of the Director affirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus under s. 23(10) — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director was wrong — Oral testimony lacking credibility and reliability — Documentary evidence not reflective of substantial impairments — Verified restrictions not substantial — Evidence did not meet balance of probabilities — Appeal denied | Statutory interpretation — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Meaning of “substantial” in s. 4(1) — Application of Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Flexible meaning, three separate tests, overlap possible — Whether both impairment and restriction thresholds met — Impairments not substantial, restrictions not reached — Appeal dismissed | Evidence — Administrative tribunals — Weighing medical and testimonial evidence — IEWS ratings inconsistent with ADLI and treatment records — Counselling documentation unclear, PHQ‑9 self‑directed — Pharmaceutical report showed stable dosage over time — Evidence not reflective of time around Director’s decision — Insufficient to establish substantial impairment — Decision of the Director affirmed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt876", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 876 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-10", "docket_number": "2509-06142", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk63s", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Definition of person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) ODSPA substantial impairment and substantial restriction — Guidance applied from Gray and Crane — Findings based on HSR, IEWS, ADLI and sworn testimony — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Director’s decision wrong under s. 23(10) — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — Whether a review date should be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Prior unsuccessful treatments and pending psychiatry referral considered — Potential for improvement assessed — Decision maker not satisfied impairment is not likely to improve — Shorter review interval fixed — Review date set | Evidence — Documentary medical evidence — Post-dated reports — Whether post-dated physician report can inform status as of Director’s decision date — Report expressly referencing conditions as of that date considered — Progress notes used to add credence to testimony — Consistency with medical documents and sworn evidence emphasised — Evidence accepted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt875", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 875 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-10", "docket_number": "2509-06118", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk63r", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA, definition of disability — Statutory test under s. 4(1) — Does the Appellant meet “person with a disability” based on substantial impairments and substantial restrictions? — Cumulative assessment of TIAs, depression, anxiety — Gray and Crane applied — Director’s decision wrong under s. 23(10) — Appeal granted, person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — ODSPA s. 4(1)(c) — Flexible approach to verification — Were ADLI ratings sufficient to verify restrictions for Depression, Anxiety? — Gray and Sandiford endorse liberal interpretation and whole-evidence evaluation — Physician-completed HSR and ADLI provide arguable basis — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Did impairments cause a substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace? — Moderate ADLI and IEWS ratings consistent with testimony — Weakness, poor memory, blackouts, depressed mood, anxiety — Substantial restriction in sedentary and physical workplaces established — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairments may improve? — Connection to stroke and TIA clinic, age, ongoing treatment — Not satisfied impairments are not likely to improve — Review date set two years — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt874", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 874 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-10", "docket_number": "2509-06109", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk63p", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Substantial impairment — Meaning of “substantial” under s. 4(1)(a) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Flexible, contextual approach from Gray and Crane applied — Whether opioid use disorder, anxiety, and pain cumulatively met the threshold — Medical records and credible testimony assessed on a balance of probabilities — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Whether substantial impairments resulted in substantial restrictions under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier principle applied to assess the person in context — ADLI severe ratings and inability to perform tasks involving the public considered — Lethargy, excessive sleep, mobility limits, and social avoidance impacting work — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Whether impairments, duration, and restrictions were verified under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report and supplemental charts by physician accepted — Nurse practitioner and physician letters confirm conditions and ongoing treatment — Onus under s. 23(10) met with proximate medical evidence — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanism — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set given potential for improvement — Age, treatment efforts, completion of methadone program, and employability supports considered — Determination that impairments may improve below substantial threshold — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt873", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 873 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-10", "docket_number": "2509-06110", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk63q", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Disability definition — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” under s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year or more — Direct and cumulative effect on personal care, community and workplace considered — Tribunal satisfied criteria met — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Medical evidence — Were the impairments, their likely duration and the resulting restrictions verified by a person with prescribed qualifications under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report and new medical evidence reviewed — Family Doctor’s HSR, ADLI and IEWS accorded weight — Verification established | Statutory interpretation — ODSPA s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial” — How to assess substantial impairment and substantial restriction — Guidance applied from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Applicant assessed in own situation per Director, ODSP v. Gallier — Flexible interpretation tied to individual circumstances — Substantial impairment and restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Reviews — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for a determination that a person is a person with a disability — Age and ongoing efforts to seek further treatment considered — Not satisfied impairment is not likely to improve — Review date set two years from Order date — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt865", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 865 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-10", "docket_number": "2508-05913", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk635", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Did the Appellant meet the statutory definition at the date of decision — Verification by prescribed professionals under s. 4(1)(c) — Burden under s. 23(10) satisfied — Medical and testimonial evidence accepted — Director’s determination found wrong — Person with a disability found | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits legislation — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial impairment” and “substantial restriction” — Application of Gray v. ODSP and Crane v. ODSP — Contextual, flexible interpretation consistent with the Act’s purposes — Gallier confirms claimant‑centred assessment — Separate yet overlapping analyses under s. 4(1)(a) and (b) — Broader coverage affirmed — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Whether impairments cumulatively caused a substantial workplace restriction — IEWS and ADL Index ratings considered — Neurologist findings and family doctor records weighed — Credible testimony on mental and physical limitations — Function in a workplace substantially restricted at decision date — Workplace restriction established | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be imposed — Ongoing treatment initiated and potential for improvement identified — Age and recent treatment changes considered — Shorter review interval appropriate — Review date set for one year and income support ordered under s. 17" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt855", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 855 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-10", "docket_number": "2508-05823", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk632", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Onus under s. 23(10) to show Director’s decision wrong — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Tribunal satisfied Appellant is a person with a disability — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Medical verification — Prescribed qualifications — Verification under s. 4(1)(c) by physician through Health Status Report — Psychiatric assessment confirming PTSD with paranoia and anger — Impairments continuous or recurrent and expected to last one year or more — Verification established on balance of probabilities — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Function in the workplace — Whether substantial restrictions established — Evidence of anger, anxiety, paranoia, avoidance of social interaction, IEWS ratings, ADLI context — Gray and Gallier applied to workplace functioning — Tribunal persuaded Appellant substantially restricted in any workplace at date of decision — Substantial restriction established | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Decision maker satisfied that impairment is not likely to improve given age — Review date not appropriate — Income support to be paid if otherwise eligible under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Review date not set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt854", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 854 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-10", "docket_number": "2508-05678", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk62v", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Statutory criteria — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” within s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Tribunal satisfied definition met — Guidance from Gray and Crane on “substantial” — Director’s decision that impairments and restrictions were not substantial overturned — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Verification and substantial impairment — Health Status Report completed by physician with prescribed qualifications — Impairments verified as continuous or recurrent and expected to last one year or more — Brain injury and cervical nerve spine injury symptoms assessed cumulatively — Reliance on pharmacology and IEWS ratings weighed — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial restriction — Whether impairments result in substantial restriction in activities of daily living, especially workplace functioning — Gray and Gallier applied to assess functioning in own situation — ADLI severe and moderate ratings, inability to lift, dropping things, difficulty with stairs and balance — Substantial restriction in workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) provides for review date unless impairment not likely to improve — Whether a review date should be set — Desire to access treatment such as acupuncture considered — Review date set two years from the date of the Order" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt832", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 832 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-10", "docket_number": "2508-05438", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk62b", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability,” s. 4(1), Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Whether Appellant met s. 4(1) at the time of the Director’s decision — Substantial impairment assessed using totality of evidence and cumulative lens — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Onus under s. 23(10) met — Appeal granted | Evidence — New medical evidence — Post‑decision reports relating back — Whether new evidence relates to condition at time of Director’s decision — Subsection 64(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 considered — Omar and Jemiolo applied — Presumption about timing of reports addressed — Tribunal satisfied reports explicitly relate to effective date — New evidence considered | Pensions and social benefits — Restrictions — Activities of daily living, workplace function — Whether substantial restriction in the workplace established — Gallier considered on contextual assessment — Verified fibromyalgia impairments causing unpredictable flares and mobility limits — Updated ADLI and HSR narratives consistent — Sedentary employment and retraining unreasonable on evidence — Substantial restriction in workplace established | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether impairments likely to improve such that a review should be set — Tribunal not satisfied impairments are unlikely to improve — Monitoring of functional status warranted — Review date set for one year — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt892", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 892 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-09", "docket_number": "2509-06298", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk64t", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Definition of person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) requirements — Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane applied to “substantial” analysis — Three-part test under s. 4(1) addressed — Director’s determination found wrong under s. 23(10) — Person with a disability confirmed — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairments and restrictions — Whether impairments and restrictions were substantial at the decision date — Medical evidence from Hematologist, IEWS severe ratings, ADLI severe and moderate ratings — Credible and reliable testimony accepted — Workplace, community and personal care functioning assessed per Gray and Gallier — Cumulative effect established — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Decision maker’s satisfaction regarding likelihood of improvement considered — Age, treatment efforts, and unexhausted options noted — Determination that impairments may improve to non‑substantial — Review date set for four years — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt880", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 880 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-09", "docket_number": "2509-06187", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk647", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works — Overpayments and recovery — Should the Tribunal exercise discretion to limit or delay recovery? — Surdivall v. Ontario applied to broad and flexible discretion — Individual circumstances considered, including administrative error already accounted for and financial hardship not exceptional — Six‑month delay in recovery ordered to allow ODSP appeal and CPP‑D stabilisation — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works — Overpayments and recovery — Was the overpayment for June and July 2025 correctly assessed and correctly calculated? — Late declaration of employment income established — Administrative error removed for March to May, overpayment upheld for June and July — Onus on appellant under s. 28(11) not met — Assessment and calculation confirmed — Appeal granted in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt872", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 872 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-09", "docket_number": "2509-06101", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk63n", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Does the Appellant meet the definition of “person with a disability”? — Three-part test from Crane v. Ontario applied — Separate analysis of impairment, substantial restrictions, and verification — Director’s decision assessed at the time made — Person with a disability not established — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Substantial restrictions — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(b) — Whether restrictions in personal care, community, or workplace are substantial — Mild ADLI ratings, limited persuasive narrative — Gallier contextual approach applied — Reported daily functioning incongruent with substantial restriction — Whole person analysis considered — Substantial restriction not proven — Director’s decision affirmed | Evidence — Burden and standard of proof — Onus — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Reliability of testimony questioned, weight given to HSR and ADLI — Scarce contemporaneous impairment evidence — Balance of probabilities not met — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt871", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 871 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-09", "docket_number": "2509-06064", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk63l", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP — Prescribed class — Does CPPD approval qualify the Appellant as a member of a prescribed class under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 4(1)6? — CPPD test severe and prolonged, more onerous — Same verified conditions and restrictions — Tribunal satisfied Appellant eligible for ODSP as prescribed class — Decision of Director rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — ODSPA s. 4(1) — Is the Appellant a “person with a disability” under s. 4(1) on the basis of prescribed class? — Director erred in denying application — CPPD approved effective earlier period — If otherwise eligible, income support payable under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Ongoing eligibility — Review date — Should a review date be set where eligibility rests on prescribed class status under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 4(1)6? — Tribunal satisfied Appellant will remain eligible as member of prescribed class — Appropriate to set no review date — No review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt864", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 864 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-09", "docket_number": "2508-06025", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk63g", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) definition — Director’s denial overturned based on DDP, Health Status Report, IEWS, ADLI, and sworn testimony — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied to broad, flexible interpretation — Onus under s. 23(10) satisfied — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment — Mental health impairments — Whether impairments are substantial under s. 4(1)(a) — Depression and anxiety with severe and moderate symptoms on IEWS, multiple medication trials, counselling, physician narrative — Flexible meaning of “substantial” and whole-person assessment per Gray and Crane — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial restriction — Activities of daily living — Whether impairments result in substantial restriction under s. 4(1)(b) — Workplace functioning limited by fear of dark and water, sleep dysfunction, physician’s order not to drive, ADLI ratings — Person-in-context approach from Gallier — Substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — Review and reassessment — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date for disability determination — Age and continuing efforts at treatment considered, likelihood of improvement addressed — Review date set for one year — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt862", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 862 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-09", "docket_number": "2508-05984", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk638", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — OSAP non-educational funding — Was the Director correct to assess an overpayment under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act? — Whether non-educational portion not an allowable deduction under O Reg 222/98, s. 43 — Weight given to Appellant’s testimony and program transition context — Director’s decision not correct — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Calculation — Was the calculation correct given OSAP study period dates from January to July? — Allocation of non-educational funding to study period days — Entire month of January improperly included — Overlap limited to last ten days of January — Overpayment recalculated to $580.37 | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery — Discretion — Should recovery be varied due to administrative error and financial hardship? — Factors giving rise to overpayment include administrative error — Flexibility in collection recognised in Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 — Childcare, travel, and medical expenses considered — Monthly recovery reduced to no more than $40.00 | Procedure — Tribunal jurisdiction — Internal review variations — Did the Tribunal have jurisdiction to proceed after the initial overpayment was rescinded and varied? — Internal reviews stemmed from the initial appeal — Jurisdiction to rule on amount added at internal review confirmed — Hearing proceeded on revised overpayment — Jurisdiction confirmed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt861", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 861 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-09", "docket_number": "2508-05908", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk634", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Assessment — OAS and GIS income not reported — Whether the decision to assess an ODSP overpayment was correct — Calculation of overpayment not disputed by the Appellants — Overpayment varied to $16,008.10 and divided equally — Assessment made in accordance with the Ontario Disability Support Program Act — Decision to assess overpayment confirmed — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery — Discretion — Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 applied — Whether administrative error by the Director justified limiting recovery — Caseworker aware of OAS/GIS application and no follow up — Accountability to taxpayers and due diligence under s. 1 of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act — Recovery limited to 50 percent of overpayment — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery — Financial hardship — Whether financial hardship warranted further reduction of recovery — Income and expenses showed surplus with no arrears — Significant savings held in accounts — Anticipated income changes unsupported by documents — Enormous financial hardship not demonstrated under Surdivall — Further reduction to recovery not warranted — Appeal otherwise dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt840", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 840 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-09", "docket_number": "2508-05609", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk62q", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) at the time of the Director’s decision — Verified impairments including depression, PTSD and ADHD — IEWS and ADLI scores supporting cumulative substantiality — Medications and counselling documented — Substantial restriction in workplace found — Employment and retraining unreasonable — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Evidence — New evidence — Tribunal record — Whether post‑decision medical charts relate to the condition at the effective date under s. 64(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Guidance from Omar and Jemiolo applied — Presumption about report dates addressed — Charts expressly tied to time of decision — New medical evidence considered | Statutory interpretation — ODSPA s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial” — Whether “substantial impairment” and “substantial restriction” require flexible, case‑specific analysis — Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane applied — Three separate tests with possible evidentiary overlap — Broader segment of society encompassed — Framework adopted and applied | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP administration — Review date — Whether to set a review date under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Possible improvement in impairments noted — Determination that impairments may improve to enable full‑time work — Review mechanism engaged — Review date set for two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt822", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 822 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-09", "docket_number": "2504-02353", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk61x", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met subsection 4(1) criteria — Gray v. Director and Crane applied to “substantial” and separate tests — Cumulative impairments of Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disorder and Hearing Loss accepted — Testimony, medical records and treatment considered — Tribunal satisfied impairment and restriction thresholds met — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification requirements — Prescribed qualifications — Were impairment, duration and restriction verified under s. 4(1)(c)? — Health Status Report completed by family physician accepted — Burden on Appellant under s. 23(10) — Carpal Tunnel Syndrome not verified and disregarded — Verified conditions confined to Lumbar DDD and Hearing Loss — CTS-related evidence excluded | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Substantial restriction — Did substantial impairments result in substantial restrictions in personal care, community, workplace? — Gallier considered, person assessed in own situation — ADLI moderate and mild ratings persuasive — Homemaker tasks limited, sitting and standing tolerances restricted — Testimony consistent with physician ratings — Substantial restrictions established | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairments may improve? — Age, ongoing treatment with family physician, pending referrals to pain clinic and CT scan considered — Decision maker not satisfied impairments unlikely to improve — One-year review appropriate — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt814", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 814 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-09", "docket_number": "2509-06332", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk64x", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability eligibility — ODSPA s. 4(1) — Is the Appellant a “person with a disability” at the time of the Director’s decision? — Continuous or recurrent impairments verified by prescribed professionals — Cumulative effect causing substantial restriction in workplace functioning — Medical evidence and testimony accepted on balance of probabilities — Appeal granted and person with a disability determined | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits legislation — ODSPA s. 4(1)(a)–(b) — How should “substantial” be interpreted and applied? — Flexible meaning related to individual circumstances consistent with the Act’s purposes — Broader segment intended per Gray v. Director ODSP, Crane applied — Overlap between impairment and restriction evidence recognised — Meaning of substantial affirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Burden of proof — ODSPA s. 23(10) — Did the Appellant satisfy the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong? — Onus on Appellant to establish all three factors in s. 4(1) — Medical reports, imaging and functional indices support substantial impairments and restrictions — Balance of probabilities met — Onus discharged and Director’s decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Review of eligibility — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set due to outstanding treatment options? — Determination that impairment not likely to improve required to omit review date — Record indicates treatment options remain available — Review timeline appropriate to reassess restrictions and functional capacity — Review date set for two years from order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt806", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 806 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-09", "docket_number": "2509-06196", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk648", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the appellant meets the definition in ODSPA s. 4(1) — Substantial physical or mental impairment continuous or recurrent — Verification by prescribed professional accepted — Gray and Crane applied to substantiality and separate tests — Tribunal satisfied thresholds under s. 4(1)(a) to (c) met — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Whether impairments result in substantial restrictions in personal care, community, or workplace — Gallier confirms assessment in context of this appellant — HSR and IEWS show moderate to severe limitations — Testimony confirms limited motivation, anxiety, poor memory — Function in workplace substantially restricted — Substantial restrictions found | Pensions and social benefits — Burden of proof — ODSPA s. 23(10) — Whether the appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Credible testimony of appellant and spouse accepted — Longtime physician’s evidence given significant weight — Matthews affirms Tribunal decides substantiality — Onus discharged on balance of probabilities — Onus met | Pensions and social benefits — Reviews — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date for disability determination — Evidence shows ongoing impairments with slight improvement on treatment — Decision maker may set review unless impairment not likely to improve — Two‑year review appropriate given hope of improvement — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt797", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 797 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-09", "docket_number": "2509-06129", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk60w", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) criteria considered — Did the Appellant meet the definition of “person with a disability”? — Verification by prescribed professional accepted — Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane applied — Director’s determination found wrong under s. 23(10) — Decision rescinded, income support to be paid — Appeal granted | Procedure — Appeals — Extension of time — ODSPA, s. 23(2) — Should the Tribunal grant an extension to file the appeal? — Late filing explained by circumstances — No objection from Director — Reasonable grounds and apparent merit established — Intention to proceed proven — Extension granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Do substantial impairments result in substantial restriction in a workplace? — Cumulative effect of gastroenteritis, GAD, depression, ADHD assessed — ADLI severe rating and credible testimony accepted — Gray and Gallier principles applied — Substantial restriction in any workplace found — Person with a disability confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set? — Young Appellant with ongoing treatment efforts — Impairments may improve — Decision maker not satisfied impairment unlikely to improve — Timed reassessment appropriate — Review date set for three years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt776", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 776 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-09", "docket_number": "2509-06027", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk601", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — ODSPA s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability — Substantial physical impairments found on totality of evidence — Guidance applied from Gray and Crane on “substantial” — Medical narratives and testimony accepted — Director’s determination that impairments were not substantial rejected — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — ODSPA s. 4(1)(c) — Were impairments and restrictions verified by a person with prescribed qualifications? — Health Status Report by physician accepted — Back pain not verified and disregarded — Onus on Appellant per s. 23(10) met regarding verified conditions — Decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Did the impairments result in a substantial restriction in workplace function? — Gallier considered on person‑specific context — ADLI moderate ratings persuasive — Inability to drive and reliance on children corroborated — Substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — Burden of proof — ODSPA s. 23(10) — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Sworn testimony consistent with medical evidence — Treatment limitations due to financial barriers noted per Jemiolo — Director’s “not substantial” finding overturned — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set? — Age and continued efforts at treatment considered — Impairments may improve to below substantial threshold — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Review date set for two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt741", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 741 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-09", "docket_number": "2508-05388", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5xj", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Disability definition — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability within subsection 4(1) — Application of Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario to “substantial” — Cumulative assessment of impairments and restrictions — Director’s decision found wrong — Person with a disability within subsection 4(1) confirmed — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Substantial restrictions — Were the Appellant’s substantial impairments causing substantial restrictions in workplace function at the decision date? — Evidence of ADLI severe rating for Physical Activity and moderate ratings — Gallier considered on individualised context — Inability to perform physical job demands established — Substantial restriction in workplace function found | Pensions and social benefits — Evidence and verification — Medical verification and onus — Were impairment, duration, and restrictions verified by a person with prescribed qualifications under para. 4(1)(c)? — HSR, IEWS and Family Doctor’s Letter accepted as reliable — Jemiolo considered on treatment efforts — Subsection 23(10) onus met — Director’s decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Reviews — Review date — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Age and continued efforts at treatment considered — Possibility of improvement noted — Review timeline determined by Tribunal — Review date set for five years — Income support payable if otherwise eligible" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt720", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 720 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-09", "docket_number": "2502-00815", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5wr", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability, s. 4(1) — Whether impairments and restrictions were substantial at the date of the Director’s decision — Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane applied — Mental Health, Dyspnea with Exertion NYD, Asthma, Wolff-Parkinson-White symptoms assessed cumulatively — Direct and cumulative effect on workplace function established — Appeal granted | Procedure — Tribunal process — Late evidence — Admission of new medical evidence under O. Reg. 222/98, ss. 64–65 — Whether late documents relating to the date of the Director’s decision should be accepted — Discretion to adjourn, refuse, or accept considered — No objection by Respondent — Evidence admitted and weight addressed — Evidence admitted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Whether impairments and likely duration and restrictions were verified under the Act — Health Status Report and physician notes accepted — Chronic Cervical Myofasciitis not verified and disregarded — Only verified conditions assessed for eligibility — Compliance with s. 4(1)(c) required — Unverified condition disregarded | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — Whether a review date should be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Age, desire to improve and continued treatment considered — Some improvement on Mental Health medication noted — Possibility of functional improvement found — Review date set three years from order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt812", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 812 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-06", "docket_number": "2509-06254", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk64m", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Statutory definition, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Gray and Crane applied to substantiality and three-part test — Medical verification accepted — Onus under s. 23(10) discharged — Decision of Director wrong — Appellant found to be a person with a disability | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Substantial impairment and restriction — Whether substantial impairments resulted in a substantial restriction in workplace function — Evidence from HSR, IEWS, ADLI and testimony assessed cumulatively — Gallier considered on contextual assessment — Workplace attendance, concentration and task completion limited — Substantial restriction in workplace function established — Appeal granted and Director’s decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Age and pending access to neurology, psychiatry, counselling or therapy considered — Impairment may improve with treatment — Shorter review period appropriate — Review date set for one year from order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt811", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 811 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-06", "docket_number": "2509-06252", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk64l", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the appellant meets s. 4(1) definition at the date of the Director’s decision — Application of Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Onus under s. 23(10) ODSPA — Cumulative impairments and functional impact considered — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Verification — Whether prescribed verification of impairment, duration and restriction under s. 4(1)(c) ODSPA was satisfied — Weight given to Health Status Report and physician’s narrative — Additional medical information and ADLI considered — Inadequate verification excluded for HTN, DM2 and stomach acidity — Verification established | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Substantial restrictions — Do cumulative impairments substantially restrict activities of daily living and workplace function? — Gallier applied to assess restrictions in the appellant’s circumstances — Severe limitations in mobility, personal care, community function and sustained activity — Reliance on family support documented — Substantial restrictions found | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA administration — Review date — Whether a review date should be set under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Consideration of likely improvement with recent psychological treatment and adherence — Balance between stability of benefits and anticipated change — Time allowed for treatment and reassessment — Review date set for two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt809", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 809 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-06", "docket_number": "2509-06321", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk64w", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Definition of disability — ODSPA s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions analysed — Guidance applied from Gray and Crane — Chronic low back pain, anxiety, depression found substantial — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Appeal granted and Director’s decision rescinded | Evidence — Weighing and credibility — Medical records and testimony — How should the Tribunal assess inconsistent testimony with clinical notes and IEWS and ADLI ratings under s. 23(10)? — Balance of probabilities applied — Physician’s observations and scales corroborate impairments — Inconsistencies attributed to judgment and emotional regulation deficits — Determination of substantiality confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Review of eligibility — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set? — Age and potential access to counselling considered — Possibility of improvement in impairments noted — Review mechanism engaged for future reassessment — Review date set for one year from the order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt808", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 808 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-06", "docket_number": "2509-06206", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk64b", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” under ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Did the Appellant prove substantial impairment and substantial restriction at the time of the Director’s decision? — Chronic migraine without aura assessed — Activities of daily living considered — Evidence did not meet both “substantial” thresholds — Appeal denied | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial” — Application of Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Flexible meaning tied to individual circumstances and purposes of the Act — Separate tests for impairment, restriction and verification analysed — Overlap of evidence considered — Interpretation applied to facts — Decision of Director affirmed | Evidence — Administrative tribunal — Weight of medical evidence — Whether medical and lay evidence established substantial impairment on a balance of probabilities — Nurse Practitioner clinical notes, IEWS and ADLI considered — Unreliable testimony and non-compliance with treatment — Level of treatment and frequency of contact weighed — Medical documentation given significant weight — Substantial impairment not proven | Procedure — Burden and standard — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Onus on Appellant to satisfy Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Standard of proof on a balance of probabilities — No preliminary issues — Evidence at date of Director’s decision determinative — Appellant failed to discharge burden — Decision of Director upheld — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt807", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 807 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-06", "docket_number": "2509-06198", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk649", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) requirements — All three parts of s. 4(1) must be satisfied (Crane) — Restrictions and duration not established on the record — Director’s decision affirmed where statutory test unmet — Appeal dismissed | Evidence — Medical evidence — Verification by prescribed professional — Whether impairments and expected duration were verified under s. 4(1)(c) — Ophthalmologist indicated impairments expected to last less than one year — Oral testimony insufficient to satisfy verification — No document from a person with prescribed qualifications addressing duration — Appeal dismissed | Procedure — Adjournments — Tribunal powers — Whether the Tribunal could adjourn to obtain further medical reports — O.Reg. 64(3) prevents adjournment to fill evidentiary gaps — Appellant understood missing medical documentation — Hearing proceeded on existing record — Appeal dismissed | Procedure — Burden of proof — Onus on Appellant — Whether the Appellant satisfied s. 23(10) by showing the Director was wrong — Record lacked verification of impairments and restrictions — Statutory test from Sandiford considered — Insufficient evidence to discharge onus — Decision of the Director affirmed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt805", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 805 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-06", "docket_number": "2509-06186", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk646", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Verification — Were impairments, likely duration and restrictions verified by a prescribed professional under s. 4(1)(c) of the ODSPA? — Health Status Report completed by physician with prescribed qualifications — IEWS and ADLI considered — Continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year or more — Onus under s. 23(10) met — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial impairment — Did the Appellant have a substantial impairment within s. 4(1)(a) ODSPA? — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Delusional Disorder with anxiety, paranoia, auditory symptoms, poor concentration — Treatment with Olanzapine and Sertraline noted — Totality of evidence accepted — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial restriction — Whether impairments caused substantial restriction in workplace function under s. 4(1)(b) ODSPA — Gallier context principle considered — Severe ADLI ratings in transportation, appointments, finances, social interactions — Inability to leave home unaccompanied — Workplace function substantially restricted — Person with a disability determined | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Potential improvement with therapy and occupational support noted — Barriers to accessing services acknowledged — Decision maker not satisfied impairment is unlikely to improve — Review date set for three years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt788", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 788 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-06", "docket_number": "2509-06088", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk60g", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Statutory definition — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability under ODSPA s. 4(1) — Onus on Appellant under ODSPA s. 23(10) — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Whole‑person assessment of medical evidence and testimony — Director’s decision set aside — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Person with a disability — ODSPA s. 4(1) tests — Did the Appellant establish substantial impairments and substantial restrictions at the time of decision? — Medical reports and testimony accepted — Cumulative effects of osteoarthritis emphasised — Gallier context analysis considered — Substantiality given flexible meaning — Appellant found to be a person with a disability | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — ODSPA s. 4(1)(c) — Can a post‑decision psychological assessment verify impairment, duration, and restrictions? — Sandiford applied on arguable basis threshold — Psychologist’s findings of long‑standing limitations accepted — Duration expected to last one year or more verified — Verification of Intellectual Disability accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Do substantial impairments result in a substantial restriction in workplace‑related activities? — ADLI ratings and testimony on mobility, standing, sitting, lifting — Gallier confirms person‑specific analysis — Cumulative effect found to preclude gaining or maintaining employment — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for the disability determination? — Physician indicates deterioration and impairment not likely to improve — Age and nature of impairments considered — Decision maker satisfied no improvement likely — Review date not set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt761", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 761 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-06", "docket_number": "2508-05804", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5z6", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Disability determination — Whether Appellant meets s. 4(1) ODSPA definition — Verification by prescribed professional under s. 4(1)(c) — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions assessed on totality of evidence — Director’s decision rescinded — Review date considered under O. Reg. 222/98 — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability definition — Substantial impairment — Whether impairments under s. 4(1)(a) are substantial — Guidance from Gray and Crane on flexible, contextual assessment — IEWS severe ratings, chronic pain, multiple surgeries, medication and therapy considered — Onus met under s. 23(10) — Substantial impairment established | Pensions and social benefits — Disability definition — Activities of daily living — Whether substantial restrictions under s. 4(1)(b) proven — ADLI severe bladder control, moderate sitting, physical limitations corroborated — Gallier contextual approach applied to workplace functioning — Evidence of pain, concentration deficits, difficulty with tasks persuasive — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Proof and onus — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong under s. 23(10) — Verified impairments, duration and restrictions accepted — Medical evidence and credible testimony aligned — Separate s. 4(1) tests analysed and met — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Reviews — Medical review date — Whether to set review date under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Likelihood of improvement considered in light of age and recent therapy — Continuing impairments acknowledged with potential for change — Review date of 2 years set — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt758", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 758 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-06", "docket_number": "2508-05729", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5z3", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Disability determination — ODSPA, s. 4(1) definition of “person with a disability” — Whether substantial impairments and substantial restrictions existed at the date of decision — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Activities of Daily Living Index and testimony weighed — Function in workplace substantially restricted, Gallier considered — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Medical verification — Verification by person with prescribed qualifications under s. 4(1)(c) — Whether family doctor’s Health Status Report and indices verified impairments, duration and restrictions — IEWS and ADL ratings consistent with reported symptoms — Supplementary medical records corroborative — Verification satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus of proof — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Totality of evidence approach adopted, including treatment context and functional impact — Jemiolo considered regarding treatment — Onus discharged | Pensions and social benefits — Administration of benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set for disability determination — Impairment not found unlikely to improve — Appellant’s age and willingness to engage in further treatment considered — Review date set for two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt748", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 748 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-06", "docket_number": "2508-05575", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5xr", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Is the Appellant a person with a disability under subsection 4(1)? — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied to substantial impairment analysis — Medical evidence and testimony accepted — Director’s decision found wrong under s. 23(10) — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(c) — Were impairments, likely duration, and restrictions verified by prescribed professionals? — Health Status Report and physician’s medical report accepted — Prescribed qualifications established — Verification of Mental Health conditions and chronic pain confirmed at the decision date — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Substantial restriction — Do substantial impairments result in substantial restrictions in community, workplace, or personal care under s. 4(1)(b)? — Gallier considered on person‑centred assessment — ADLI and testimony show severe workplace and self‑care limitations — Substantial restriction in workplace found — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for disability determination? — Decision maker may set review unless satisfied impairment not likely to improve — Age and ongoing treatment support future review — Two‑year review date fixed — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt746", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 746 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-06", "docket_number": "2508-05560", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5xp", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the appellant is a “person with a disability” at the date of decision — Meaning of “substantial” impairment and restriction applied — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane considered — Psychiatric diagnoses and IEWS and ADLI ratings weighed — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Appeal allowed | Procedure — Extension of time — ODSPA, s. 23(2) — Late appeal filed beyond 30 days under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 61(1) — Whether reasonable grounds for extension and apparent grounds for appeal established — Intention to pursue and prompt steps after psychiatric visit accepted — Extension to file appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairments may improve — Young age and ongoing treatment indicating potential improvement — Determination that impairment not permanently non-improving — Periodic reassessment appropriate — Review date set for two years from order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt745", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 745 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-06", "docket_number": "2508-05522", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5xn", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability eligibility — Verification — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability under ODSPA s. 4(1) — Requirement of verification by a person with prescribed qualifications — Flexible and liberal interpretation considered per Gray and Sandiford — No medical evidence filed to verify impairments, duration or restrictions — Appeal denied, Director’s decision affirmed | Procedure — Adjournments — Tribunal discretion — Did the Tribunal properly deny an adjournment to obtain medical evidence? — Discretion under SPPA s. 21 applied to individual circumstances and natural justice — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 64(3) prohibits adjournment to obtain medical evidence — Multiple extensions previously granted — Adjournment denied | Procedure — Onus — Appeals — Whether the Appellant met the onus under ODSPA s. 23(10) — Burden to show Director’s decision was wrong — Absence of evidence from a person with prescribed qualifications — No basis to proceed to substantiality analysis under s. 4(1) — Appeal dismissed, Director’s decision affirmed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt737", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 737 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-06", "docket_number": "2508-05341", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5xc", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met ODSPA s. 4(1) — Interpretation guided by Gray and Crane — Continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year or more — Onus under s. 23(10) satisfied — Cumulative analysis of mental and hearing impairments — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Verification requirements — Whether impairments, duration, and restrictions were verified under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report by general practitioner accepted — Audiology confirming bilateral sensorineural hearing loss — IEWS and ADLI scores considered — Tribunal preferred documentary medical evidence over unreliable testimony — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Activities of daily living — Whether substantial restriction in workplace established under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier contextual test applied — Anxiety and hearing loss limiting communication and focus — Severe and moderate ADLI entries persuasive — Employment and retraining unreasonable at date of decision — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review of disability status — Whether a review date should be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Potential for improvement in impairments identified — Decision maker not satisfied impairments unlikely to improve — Review scheduled one year from order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt730", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 730 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-06", "docket_number": "2507-05200", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5x4", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) definition — Verified impairments and restrictions under prescribed qualifications — Direct and cumulative effect causing substantial restriction in workplace function — CPP disability approval considered as prescribed class — Appeal granted and Director’s decision rescinded — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Meaning of substantial — How should “substantial” impairment and restriction be interpreted under s. 4(1)? — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Flexible meaning tied to individual circumstances and purposes of the Act — Three separate tests requiring separate analysis — Interpretation applied | Evidence — Medical evidence — Onus — Does the verified evidence satisfy subs. 23(10) onus on the Appellant? — Family physician verification of impairments and restrictions — IEWS and ADLI indicating severe and moderate limitations — Historical records given little weight — CPP disability finding considered under O Reg 222/98, s. 4(1), 4(6) — Evidence sufficient | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP review — Review date — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Decision maker satisfied impairments may improve — Age and potential for future treatment considered — Review date established notwithstanding current eligibility — Five-year review period specified — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt815", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 815 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-05", "docket_number": "2509-06337", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk64z", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP — Overpayments and entitlement — Whether the decision to assess the overpayment was correct — EI payments as income under subs. 37(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Onus under subs. 23(10) of the Act not met — No applicable exemption for EI income — Assessment of overpayment upheld — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP — Calculation of overpayment — Whether the amount of the overpayment was correctly calculated — Budgetary requirement method under subs. 29(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Evidence disclosed no error in the Director’s calculation — EI amounts and income support reconciled — Amount confirmed — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP — Recovery and discretion — Should recovery be reduced or delayed due to hardship and administrative error — Reporting duty under subs. 12(1) discharged — Small degree of administrative error by ODSP — Objectives in s. 1 of the Act and Surdivall considered — Recovery reduced to $3000 and delayed until June 2026" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt813", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 813 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-05", "docket_number": "2509-06273", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk64p", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) definition applied — Whether the Appellant meets the three-part test — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario considered — Substantiality interpreted flexibly in light of the purposes of the Act — Totality of medical evidence and testimony accepted — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Whether impairments, likely duration and restrictions were verified under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report and physician’s letter accepted as verification — Physician known to the Appellant for years and holding prescribed qualifications — Consistency between testimony and documentary record, including medication evidence — Verification established | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Whether substantial impairments result in a substantial restriction — Gallier considered on assessment in personal context — Evidence of avoidance, self‑imposed isolation, difficulty with crowds and closed spaces, and ADLI severe ratings — Direct and cumulative effect on workplace functioning found — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Medical review — Review date — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Decision maker may set date if impairment likely to improve — Tribunal satisfied further time and treatment may lessen impairments below legislative threshold — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible — Review date set for three years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt800", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 800 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-05", "docket_number": "2509-06143", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk610", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) at the date of decision — Three-part test in s. 4(1) applied with whole person analysis — Guidance from Gray and Crane considered — Director’s decision affirmed — Not a person with a disability — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment — Shoulder rotator cuff tear and ulnar neuropathy — Do the impairments meet the “substantial” threshold under s. 4(1)(a)? — Level of treatment and investigations minimal — Proximity of medical evidence lacking — Whole person analysis not supporting substantial impairment — Substantial impairment not established — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — Onus and standard of proof — ODSPA subs. 23(10) — Has the Appellant shown the Director’s decision was wrong on a balance of probabilities? — Tribunal weighing totality of medical evidence and testimony — Evidence insufficient to displace Director’s determination — Onus not met — Decision of the Director affirmed | Evidence — Weight of medical evidence — Activities of Daily Living Index ratings — What weight to give ADLI ratings and historical records absent recent specialists and active treatment? — ADLI ratings given less weight without corroboration — Historical records lacking proximity to date of decision — Treatment level relevant per Jemiolo — Insufficient evidentiary foundation — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt795", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 795 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-05", "docket_number": "2509-06123", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk60t", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Substantial impairment — Were the Appellant’s impairments substantial within ODSPA s. 4(1)(a)? — Guidance from Gray v. Director and Crane applied — Educational evidence of very low numeracy and fine-motor difficulties — Physician IEWS ratings severe for learning deficit — Real‑world work attempt corroborating cognitive impairments — Substantial impairment established — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Substantial restriction — Did the impairments result in substantial restrictions under s. 4(1)(b)? — Gallier context-based assessment applied — Persistent limits in personal care and workplace functioning — Fine‑motor self‑care tasks not performed reliably — Inability to perform entry‑level job tasks despite instruction — Substantial restrictions in personal care and workplace found — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Were impairment, duration, and restrictions verified under s. 4(1)(c)? — Health Status Report and supplemental chart completed by physician with prescribed qualifications — IEWS and ADLI supported severity and limits — Psychiatric referral delays noted but treatment not statutory requirement — Verification requirements satisfied — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Review date — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Consideration of age and potential treatment modalities — Impairment not shown unlikely to improve — Review date appropriate one year from order — Income support payable if otherwise eligible under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Review date set and benefits ordered" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt774", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 774 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-05", "docket_number": "2509-06019", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5zx", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of “person with a disability” — Did the appellant meet ODSPA s. 4(1)? — Guidance from Gray and Crane on “substantial” impairment and separate tests — Pain impairments assessed cumulatively with medical and sworn evidence — Director’s decision found wrong under s. 23(10) — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification requirements — Prescribed qualifications — Were impairments, likely duration and restrictions verified under s. 4(1)(c)? — Health Status Report by physician accepted — Sleep study confirming severe sleep apnea considered with HSR — Verification standard met on balance of probabilities — Onus under s. 23(10) satisfied — Verification satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Were there substantial restrictions in personal care, community or workplace? — Gallier applied to consider applicant’s own situation — Severe upper extremity restrictions, assistance with bathing and dressing, physician’s severe ratings — Prior shipping and receiving work incompatible with limitations — Substantial restrictions found | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set? — Age and continued efforts at treatment considered — ODSP support may enable access to otherwise unavailable treatment — Impairments may improve to below substantial threshold — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt762", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 762 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-05", "docket_number": "2508-05833", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5z7", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Definition of person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Does the Appellant meet the definition under s. 4(1) at the time of the Director’s decision? — Verification by Family Physician accepted — Continuous or recurrent impairments established — Director’s decision found wrong under s. 23(10) — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits — Meaning of substantial impairment — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(a) — Whether FND and GAD are “substantial” while PTSD and intellectual disability are not — Gray v. Director, ODSP applied for flexible meaning — Three-part test from Crane v. Ontario considered — Whole person and functional context assessed — FND and GAD substantial, PTSD and intellectual disability not substantial — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(b) — Do the impairments result in a substantial restriction in the ability to function in a workplace? — Gallier considered on individualised assessment — IEWS and ADLI ratings support substantial workplace restriction — Testimony on FND-related weakness, anxiety, poor coping accepted — Substantial restriction in workplace found — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Reviews — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairment may improve with counselling and medical management? — Engagement in counselling and investigations for FND noted — Additional support may offer further treatment modalities — Determination not permanent at this time — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt757", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 757 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-05", "docket_number": "2508-05725", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5z2", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Disability definition, ODSPA s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction assessed cumulatively — Guidance applied from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane — Credible testimony consistent with medical evidence, IEWS and ADLI considered — Workplace functioning substantially restricted at decision date — Appeal granted | Procedure — Tribunal discretion — Late medical evidence, O. Reg. 222/98 ss. 64–65 — Should late medical evidence be admitted — Evidence relates to condition at decision date and served in advance — No prejudice to Director, weight to be determined — Options to adjourn, refuse or accept reviewed — Evidence admitted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP administration — Review date, O. Reg. 222/98 s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Impairments not found permanent, potential for improvement noted — Age, motivation and ongoing treatment efforts considered — Verification of restrictions maintained with prospect of change — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt751", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 751 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-05", "docket_number": "2508-05651", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5xv", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Calculation — Whether the Director’s assessment of $55,241.06 was correct — CPP Survivor Benefit and CPP Retirement must be deducted under O Reg 222/98, s. 37 — Service Canada monthly breakdown applied to reassess income — Appellant’s spreadsheet accepted — Correct overpayment fixed at $27,702.80 — Appeal granted in part — Overpayment reduced | Administrative law — Discretion — Recovery of overpayments — Whether recovery should be limited in light of administrative error — Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 considered — Failure to conduct meaningful file reviews over several years found — Shared responsibility for accumulation of overpayment — Accountability to taxpayers and fairness balanced — Recovery limited to 60 percent | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery — Financial hardship — Whether enormous financial hardship justifies a further reduction — Evidence of income from CPP, OAS, GIS, expenses and savings reviewed — Use of food banks noted but rent and utilities current — Payments on credit card debt ongoing — Hardship not persuasive to warrant more reduction — Further reduction refused | Evidence — Documentary evidence — Proof of CPP amounts — Whether Service Canada letter should be preferred over SAMS third‑party information — Appellant discharged onus to show calculation incorrect — Service Canada breakdown provided complete monthly entitlement since eligibility — Single SAMS figures less reliable — Director’s CPP amounts rejected — Correct figures accepted — Service Canada evidence preferred" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt729", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 729 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-05", "docket_number": "2507-04834", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5x3", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met ODSPA s. 4(1) at the Director’s decision date — Continuous or recurrent mental impairments expected to last one year or more — Direct and cumulative effect causing substantial restriction in community functioning — Onus under s. 23(10) met on balance of probabilities — Credible testimony corroborated by HSR, IEWS and ADLI — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — ODSPA s. 4(1) — Substantial impairment and restriction — How should “substantial” be interpreted in s. 4(1)? — Gray v. Director ODSP applied for flexible meaning consistent with Act’s purposes — Crane v. Ontario emphasising three separate tests with possible evidentiary overlap — Totality of the evidence approach adopted — Interpretation applied to find disability | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Whether impairments, duration and restrictions were verified under s. 4(1)(c) — Physician with prescribed qualifications completed HSR and supplemental reports — Longitudinal knowledge of Appellant and IEWS and ADLI ratings — Medications and treatment history documented — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98 s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for disability determination? — Decision maker satisfied impairments may improve with treatments and time — Review scheduled to reassess substantiality against legislative test — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt724", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 724 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-05", "docket_number": "2505-03264", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5wx", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Is the Appellant a person with a disability within s. 4(1)? — Burden on Appellant under s. 23(10) met — Director’s decision found wrong — Person with a disability status established as of the date of decision — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Substantial impairment — Interpreting “substantial” under s. 4(1)(a) in light of Gray and Crane — Whether verified mental health conditions were cumulatively substantial — Psychiatrist’s IEWS ratings and narratives persuasive — Appellant’s testimony consistent and reliable — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Whether substantial restriction under s. 4(1)(b) established — ADLI severe ratings in social interactions and hobbies — Inability to maintain employment, time blindness, difficulty handling stress — Functional limitation in workplace confirmed — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set given treatment and potential for improvement? — Ongoing therapy and medication management considered — Young age and treatment options support reassessment — Review date set for one year from Order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt804", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 804 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-04", "docket_number": "2509-06159", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk63x", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP disability determination — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Did the Appellant meet the definition at the time of the Director’s decision? — Substantial impairments and restrictions assessed using Gray and Crane — Narrative HSR findings and testimonies credited — Ability to function in workplace substantially restricted — Appeal granted | Evidence — Tribunal discretion — Late submissions — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 65 — Whether to admit new submissions filed after the prescribed timeframe — Prejudice to Director considered — Submissions admitted, academic article addressing developmental delay generally accorded no weight — Evidence reviewed with reference to date of decision — Submissions admitted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification requirements — ODSPA disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(c) — Were impairments and likely duration verified by a person with prescribed qualifications? — No duration evidence for Childhood onset of epilepsy from the relevant period — Unverified impairment and restrictions cannot be considered — Related medical report disregarded — Evidence regarding epilepsy disregarded | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanism — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date for the determination that the Appellant is a person with a disability — Youth and potential improvement with continued efforts at treatment considered — Review date established three years from the order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt802", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 802 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-04", "docket_number": "2509-06151", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk63v", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A5", "reasons": [ "A5" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Statutory definition — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Is the Appellant a “person with a disability” at the date of the Director’s decision? — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Verified impairments and restrictions accepted — Director’s decision rescinded — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial impairment — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(a) — Were ASD, ADHD, BPD and PDD impairments substantial when assessed cumulatively? — Flexible meaning of “substantial” applied per Gray — IEWS severe and moderate ratings aligned with testimony — Treatment history and medications considered — Substantial impairment established | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial restriction — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(b) — Do the impairments result in substantial restriction in workplace function? — Gallier considered regarding individualised assessment — ADLI narratives on decision making and task initiation — Testimony on inability to start tasks and sustain function — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set despite current substantial impairments? — Age and continued efforts at treatment noted — Possibility of improvement acknowledged — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible — Review date set for three years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt798", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 798 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-04", "docket_number": "2509-06132", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk60x", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) criteria applied — Did the Appellant meet the “person with a disability” definition at the Director’s decision date? — Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario considered — Onus under s. 23(10) met — Appeal granted and disability status confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Verification of impairments — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(c) requirement for prescribed qualifications — Were the impairments and likely duration properly verified? — Physician HSR verified right shoulder tendinosis and restrictions — Depression and anxiety duration not verified and disregarded — Unverified impairments excluded from analysis | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Activities of daily living — Did verified impairments cause substantial restriction in workplace functioning? — Gallier applied to assess restrictions in the Appellant’s own situation — ADLI ratings and inability to use right arm persuasive — Substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairment may improve? — Awaiting orthopedic consultation and potential pain clinic referral — Not satisfied impairment is not likely to improve — Review date set for two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt796", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 796 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-04", "docket_number": "2509-06128", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk60v", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — CPP survivor benefit as income — Whether ODSP overpayment was correctly assessed and calculated — O Reg 222/98, s. 29(1), s. 37(1) applied — Reporting obligation distinct from tax filing — Payments not exempt under the legislation — Evidence of CPP income accepted — Overpayment validly assessed and amount correctly calculated — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery — Discretion to reduce recovery — Should recovery be reduced due to administrative error and Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 — Lack of regular file reviews and due diligence found — Innocent mistake not determinative — Financial hardship not exceptional — Accountability to taxpayers balanced with flexibility — Overpayment reduced to $14000 — Appeal granted in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt794", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 794 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-04", "docket_number": "2509-06122", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk60s", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Calculation — Whether overpayment was validly assessed and correctly calculated — Onus under Ontario Disability Support Program Act, subs. 23(10) — Income support calculation under O Reg 222/98, subs. 29(1), income under s. 37(1) — Employment income exceeded budgetary requirements — Funds received in excess of entitlement established by paystubs — Overpayment assessment upheld | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Recovery and discretion — Whether recovery should be modified given financial hardship and uncertainty in calculation — Reliance on Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 — Overpayment cannot exceed ODSP income support received in same month — Discretion exercised to reduce recovery amount to $672.88 — Appeal granted in part | Procedure — Jurisdiction — Timeliness of appeal — Whether Tribunal had jurisdiction over past overpayments where appeal rights had expired — References in filing to multiple prior SBT files — Lack of understanding of collections not a basis to extend jurisdiction — Tribunal proceeded only on June 19, 2025 decision — Jurisdiction over earlier overpayments denied" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt791", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 791 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-04", "docket_number": "2509-06111", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk60n", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of disability — Person with a disability under s. 4(1) ODSPA — Whether Director’s decision was wrong under s. 23(10) — Application of Gray v. Director and Crane — Medical verification and testimony considered — Appeal granted and decision rescinded — Person with a disability confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment — ODSPA s. 4(1)(a) — Whether impairments were substantial at the date of the Director’s decision — Flexible meaning of “substantial” per Gray — Overlap with functional evidence per Crane — Physician’s IEWS ratings and narrative accepted — Medications and treatment reviewed — Substantial impairments found | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial restriction — Workplace functioning — ODSPA s. 4(1)(b) — Whether impairments caused a substantial restriction in workplace activities — Individualised assessment endorsed in Gallier — ADLI ratings and narrative support — Anxiety, chronic pain, headaches affecting mobility and concentration — Substantial restriction in workplace functioning found | Pensions and social benefits — Review of eligibility — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Consideration of age and possibility impairments may lessen with treatment — Determination to reassess status — Review date set for two years from Order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt789", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 789 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-04", "docket_number": "2509-06093", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk60h", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met the s. 4(1) ODSPA definition at the date of the Director’s decision — Verification by a person with prescribed qualifications accepted — Both substantial impairment and substantial restriction required — Onus under s. 23(10) not met — Decision of the Director affirmed — Appeal denied | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits legislation — Meaning of substantial — Interpretation of “substantial” in s. 4(1)(a) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane applied — Flexible meaning consistent with the purposes of the Act — Three separate tests in s. 4(1) require separate analysis — Both thresholds must be met — Appeal dismissed | Evidence — Medical evidence — Weight — Health Status Report, IEWS and ADLI ratings assessed — Whether clinical notes and minimal treatment supported severe ratings — Limited psychotherapy, no medication, mood good and thoughts organised proximate to decision — Treatment relevant to weight per Jemiolo — Insufficient evidence on balance of probabilities to prove substantial impairment — Decision of Director affirmed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt787", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 787 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-04", "docket_number": "2509-06086", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk60f", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) ODSPA definition — Verified mental health impairments and restrictions considered — Director’s decision found wrong under s. 23(10) ODSPA — Balance of probabilities met — Tribunal satisfied Appellant is a person with a disability — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits legislation — Meaning of “substantial” — How “substantial” in s. 4(1)(a)–(b) ODSPA should be interpreted — Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Flexible, purpose‑consistent meaning and three separate tests recognised — Overlap between impairment and function evidence acknowledged — Definition construed broadly to encompass significant barriers — Interpretation affirmed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Substantial restriction in workplace — Do the impairments result in substantial restriction in the ability to function in a workplace? — IEWS and ADLI ratings support substantial workplace restriction — Social worker’s medicolegal report accepted — Test applied to Appellant’s circumstances per Gallier — Substantial restriction in workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA administration — Review date — Should a review date be set under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98? — Prospects of improvement considered given age, motivation and treatment modalities — Decision maker not satisfied impairment unlikely to improve — Review mechanism engaged — Review date set for two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt767", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 767 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-04", "docket_number": "2508-05993", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5zl", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility — Whether the appellant is a “person with a disability” under s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Director’s decision reviewed on appeal within tribunal — Thresholds of substantial impairment and substantial restriction both required — Failure to meet substantial impairment threshold — Appeal denied | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits legislation — Definition of “substantial” — Meaning of substantial impairment and substantial restriction in s. 4(1) ODSPA — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Flexible, purposive interpretation, yet separate tests and onus under s. 23(10) — Both thresholds must be met — Director’s decision affirmed | Evidence — Disability determination — Weight of medical and oral evidence — Whether the record established substantial impairments on a balance of probabilities — Documentary record and physician observations preferred — Conservative treatment, minimal intervention, inconsistencies with self-reported pain and activities — Jemiolo factors on treatment and activity level considered — Insufficient proof of substantial impairments — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt764", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 764 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-04", "docket_number": "2508-05911", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5zc", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Definition of disability — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” at the date of the Director’s decision — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction assessed on cumulative evidence — Medical verification considered alongside ADLI and IEWS — Totality of evidence not persuasive — Appeal denied | Evidence — Burden and standard — ODSPA appeals — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 23(10) — Did the Appellant satisfy the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong on a balance of probabilities? — Weight of HSR, ADLI, IEWS, and treatment records evaluated — Relevance of treatment considered per Jemiolo v. Ontario Disability Support Program — Decision of Director affirmed | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits — ODSPA disability test — Meaning of “substantial” in s. 4(1) — Interpretation of “substantial” impairment in light of individual circumstances — Guidance applied from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario (Disability Support Program) — Separate tests under s. 4(1) analysed — Insufficient evidence of substantial impairment — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt763", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 763 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-04", "docket_number": "2508-05894", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5z8", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Eligibility and assessment — Whether the decision to assess the overpayment was correct — Ontario Works Act, s. 19(1), subs. 28(11) — Income from CPP and OAS considered under Ontario Regulation 134/98, s. 40(1), s. 48(1) — Undeclared income resulting in excess entitlement — Appeal granted in part — Overpayment assessment confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Calculation — Whether the amount of the overpayment was correctly calculated — Evidence of CPP and OAS receipt accepted — No error shown in income support calculations — Appellant’s onus under subs. 28(11) not met — Internal review period applied — Amount of assessed overpayment upheld — Appeal granted in part — Calculation confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Recovery and discretion — Whether recovery should be reduced based on circumstances affecting recoverability — Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 — Report to caseworker regarding CPP accepted on balance of probabilities — Financial hardship not established to warrant full reduction — Flexibility in collection applied — Recovery reduced by specified amount — Appeal granted in part — Recovery reduced" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt744", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 744 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-04", "docket_number": "2508-05470", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5xm", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Income support — CPPD as income — Whether the decision to assess an overpayment was correct under the Act and Regulation — O Reg 222/98, ss. 29(1), 37(1) apply to CPPD — Onus under s. 23(10) of the Act not met — Funds received in excess of entitlement — Overpayment assessment confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Calculation — Was the amount of the overpayment correctly calculated for the relevant period? — Evidence of CPPD income accepted — No error shown in Director’s figures — No alternative calculation provided — Amended total including OW and ODSP periods adopted — Calculation upheld | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery — Discretion — Should recovery be reduced or limited given the Appellant’s circumstances? — Surdivall v. Ontario considered on flexibility and objectives — Credible phone reporting found but administrative error minor — Financial hardship not established on balance — Total reduced to $12000 and recovery capped at 5% to year end — Recovery reduced and limited | Pensions and social benefits — Remedies — Jurisdiction of Tribunal — Did the Tribunal have authority to order compensation for a missed housing subsidy? — Authority to grant compensatory damages not established — Claim speculative absent documentation from the housing program — Relief beyond statutory mandate refused — Compensation denied | Pensions and social benefits — Entitlement — Interaction of ODSP and CPPD — Is CPPD income to be deducted from ODSP income support? — CPPD treated as income under O Reg 222/98 — Failure to deduct resulted in excess income support — Appeal granted in part with recovery terms adjusted — Appeal granted in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt742", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 742 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-04", "docket_number": "2508-05397", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5xk", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability eligibility — ODSPA, s. 4(1) definition — Whether the Appellant was a person with a disability at the date of the Director’s decision — Substantial physical or mental impairment found — Substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace established — Verified by a person with prescribed qualifications — Totality of evidence accepted — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits statutes — ODSPA, s. 4(1) meaning of “substantial” — Application of Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Director, ODSP — Flexible, contextual assessment tied to purposes of the Act — Three separate tests requiring separate analysis — Overlap between impairment and restriction evidence recognised — Interpretation applied to facts — Person with a disability determined | Procedure — Onus and standard — ODSPA, s. 23(10) onus on Appellant — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Tribunal considers sworn testimony, HSR, IEWS and ADL Index — Weight given to treating physician’s records and specialist reports — No requirement for hospital visits — Onus discharged | Pensions and social benefits — Review of eligibility — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) review date — Whether a review date should be set for a person with a disability determination — Ongoing efforts at treatment and age considered — Impairment may improve in the future — Review date appropriate — Review date set for two years from order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt736", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 736 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-04", "docket_number": "2508-05335", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5xb", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Definition of person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant met the statutory definition — Substantial physical or mental impairment established — Direct and cumulative effect causing substantial restriction — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Director’s decision wrong under s. 23(10) — Appeal granted | Evidence — New evidence on appeal — Relevance to time of decision — Whether the Tribunal could consider medical evidence created after the Director’s decision — Omar and Jemiolo applied interpreting s. 64(1) — Presumption about date of reports addressed — Medical chart explicitly tied to time of decision — Evidence considered | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial restriction — Workplace functioning — Whether impairments substantially restricted the ability to function in a workplace — IEWS and ADLI assessed with narratives — Social interactions, attending appointments, and job seeking limited — Gallier contextual approach adopted — Unable to work at a level any employer found acceptable — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date for the disability determination — Evidence of psychiatric care and pharmacotherapy changes — Possible improvement with continued treatment — Decision maker not satisfied impairment unlikely to improve — Review scheduled" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt734", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 734 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-04", "docket_number": "2508-05315", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5x8", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met the definition in s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Substantial physical or mental impairment and substantial restriction assessed — Activities of daily living considered — Director’s decision date applied — Not a person with a disability — Appeal denied | Evidence — Medical evidence — Weight and sufficiency — Whether medical and testimonial evidence established substantial impairments and restrictions at the date of the Director’s decision — IEWS and ADLI ratings assessed against testimony — Lack of corroborating clinical notes and specialist records — Pharmacotherapy noted — Incongruent ratings diminished weight — Substantial impairment not proven — Decision affirmed | Statutory interpretation — ODSPA s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial” — Interpretation of “substantial” and the three-part test under s. 4(1) in light of Gray and Crane — Flexible meaning related to individual circumstances — Overlap between impairment and functional domains recognised — Separate analysis for paragraphs (a) and (b) applied — Requirements not established — Appeal dismissed | Procedure — Onus and standard — Tribunal proceedings — Whether the Appellant met the onus under s. 23(10) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Onus on Appellant to show Director wrong — Balance of probabilities applied to evidence — Date of decision focus — Onus not met — Director’s decision affirmed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt817", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 817 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2508-05963", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk636", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Person with a disability — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1)(a) — Whether the Appellant had a substantial physical or mental impairment — Guidance from Gray v. Director and Crane applied — Continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year or more — Medical and testimonial evidence persuasive of substantial impairment — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Function in workplace — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1)(b) — Whether impairments caused substantial restrictions in personal care, community, or workplace — Gallier considered on individualised assessment — Evidence of low motivation, energy, and avoidance of leaving home — Workplace functioning found substantially restricted — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1)(c) — Whether impairments, duration, and restrictions were verified by a person with prescribed qualifications — Health Status Report, ADL Index, and supplemental records relied upon — Family physician, psychiatrist, and psychotherapist corroborated impairments and restrictions — Verification satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date for a determination of disability — Tribunal satisfied a date is appropriate given age and potential for improvement — Review period calibrated to treatment prospects — Review date set for two years from order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt801", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 801 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2509-06147", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk63t", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met the definition in s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Medical and testimonial evidence of chronic low back pain and severe spinal stenosis — Substantial restriction in workplace functioning established — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Verification by prescribed professional — Were the impairments, likely duration and restrictions verified under s. 4(1)(c)? — Health Status Report completed by physician with prescribed qualifications — MRI and specialist reports consistent with HSR — Verification accepted as continuous or recurrent and expected to last one year or more — Appeal allowed | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits eligibility — Meaning of “substantial” in s. 4(1) — How should “substantial impairment” and “substantial restriction” be interpreted under the ODSPA? — Guidance applied from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Flexible, contextual approach considering the whole person and cumulative effects — Substantial thresholds met | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Prognosis recorded as unknown — Potential for further treatment including injections, physiotherapy or surgery — Decision maker not satisfied impairment is not likely to improve — Review date set four years from Order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt799", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 799 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2509-06137", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk60z", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of “person with a disability” — Whether impairments and restrictions met thresholds under s. 4(1)(a) and (b) at the date of the Director’s decision — Gray and Crane guidance applied — Depression and anxiety cumulatively substantial, continuous or recurrent — Direct and cumulative effect causing substantial restriction in personal care and community function — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Whether impairments, likely duration and restrictions were verified by a person with the prescribed qualifications under s. 4(1)(c) — Cumming mandatory verification, Sandiford on scope — Family doctor completed HSR, IEWS and ADL Index, prescribed qualifications confirmed — Lay evidence not a substitute — Verification established | Pensions and social benefits — Onus — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal under s. 23(10) that the Director’s decision was wrong — Totality of evidence considered, testimony consistent with medical documentation, credibility accepted — Gallier emphasising assessment in the applicant’s own situation — Functional impacts corroborated — Onus discharged — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — Whether a medical review date should be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Decision maker to be satisfied impairment not likely to improve — Appellant under active medical care, potential improvement anticipated — Four-year review appropriate in circumstances — Medical review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt790", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 790 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2509-06094", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk60j", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Vision Care Benefit — Eligibility and medical necessity — Whether ultrathin lenses were medically necessary and should be approved — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 44(1) interpreted regarding approval for vision services — Treating optometrist’s recommendation preferred over conclusory medical consultant opinions — Director required to engage with reasons provided — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Vision Care Benefit — Remedy and payment modality — Should the Tribunal order payment to the recipient without a receipt where purchase is undisputed — ODSP Act, s. 1 purposes considered, accountability and effective service to persons with disabilities — Direct payment to ODSP recipient common for medical benefits — Reimbursement to recipient ordered | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus under statute — Did the Appellant meet the onus under s. 23(10) to show the Director’s decision was wrong — Evidence from treating optometrist and testimony accepted — Director’s medical consultants’ opinions insufficient and not responsive — Balance of probabilities met — Onus satisfied" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt786", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 786 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2509-06081", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk60c", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability benefits — Eligibility — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Definition of “person with a disability” applied to Appellant’s impairments and restrictions — Whether cumulative effect of pain conditions and anxiety, depression met substantial thresholds — Guidance in Gray, Crane and Gallier considered — Appellant’s testimony and medical records credited — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Procedure — Tribunal proceedings — Late evidence — O. Reg. 222/98, ss. 64, 65 — Whether late medical records should be admitted — Relevance to date of Director’s decision and absence of prejudice analysed — Discretion exercised to admit records without adjournment — Weight to be determined in light of proximity and relevance — Evidence admitted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date following disability determination — Likelihood of improvement considered in light of age and ongoing treatment — Continuous or recurrent impairments acknowledged yet potential for change recognised — Review mechanism engaged — Review date set for three years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt783", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 783 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2509-06077", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk608", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability eligibility — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Is the Appellant a person with a disability within s. 4(1)? — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction analysed — Weight of HSR, ADLI, MRI and sworn testimony — Guidance applied from Gray, Crane and Gallier — Onus under s. 23(10) met — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Potential for improvement with continued treatment considered — Recent access to new family physician and pain management specialist noted — Decision maker not satisfied impairment unlikely to improve — Review date set for one year from order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt780", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 780 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2509-06060", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk605", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Person with a disability — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Did the Appellant have a substantial impairment that was continuous or recurrent? — Direct and cumulative effect resulted in a substantial restriction in a workplace — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Carpal tunnel syndrome and chronic back and knee pain cumulatively substantial — Appeal granted | Procedure — Extension of time — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 23(2), O. Reg. 222/98, s. 61 — Should time to appeal be extended beyond the prescribed period? — Apparent grounds for an appeal and reasonable grounds for applying established — Need for legal advice and clinic appointment explained delay — Extension to the date actually filed — Extension granted | Evidence — Admissibility — O. Reg. 222/98, ss. 64(1)(b), 65(3) — Should new medical evidence filed less than 30 days before the hearing be admitted? — Natural justice, adequate notice, and fair opportunity to present case considered — Prejudice to Appellant outweighed prejudice to Director — New information provided context to existing impairments — Evidence admitted | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a medical review date be set? — Not satisfied that impairment is not likely to improve — Appropriate to set a review date of 5 years from the Order — Potential exists that impairments will no longer reach substantial level by that date — Medical review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt779", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 779 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2509-06057", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk604", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Disability eligibility — Is the Appellant a \"person with a disability\" under s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction thresholds considered — Verification by prescribed professional accepted — Evidence did not establish substantial impairment or restriction at decision date — Appeal denied | Statutory interpretation — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Meaning of \"substantial\" — Application of Gray v. Director, Ontario Disability Support Program and Crane v. Ontario — Flexible meaning tied to individual circumstances — Three separate tests requiring separate answers — Must both substantial thresholds be met — Both thresholds required and not met — Decision affirmed | Evidence — Tribunal hearings — Burden of proof — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Onus on Appellant to show Director was wrong — Medical evidence and testimony weighed — Physician letters contrasted with daily ESL attendance, public transit use, ADLI mild to moderate ratings — Whether evidence proves substantial impairment — Insufficient persuasive evidence of substantiality — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt777", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 777 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2509-06043", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk602", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability, s. 4(1) — Does the Appellant meet s. 4(1) at the time of the Director’s decision — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions assessed cumulatively — Guidance from Gray, Crane, and Gallier applied — Medical evidence and testimony consistent — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Onus under s. 23(10) met — Decision of Director rescinded — Appeal granted | Evidence — Administrative tribunals — New medical evidence — Can the Tribunal consider a psychiatric evaluation written after the decision where it relates to the Appellant’s condition at the effective date — Omar and Jemiolo applied — Presumption about report date rebutted by GP letter — ODSPA, s. 64(1) engaged — New report relates back to decision date — Evidence considered | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairments may improve — Appellant’s youth, recent cognitive behavioural therapy, and pharmacotherapy adjustments considered — Tribunal satisfied impairments may improve — Review date set two years from the Order — Income support payable if otherwise eligible, O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt775", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 775 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2509-06021", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5zz", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Statutory definition — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” under ODSPA s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial” informed by Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Whole person and functional impact assessed — Director’s determination found wrong under ODSPA s. 23(10) — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification requirements — Prescribed qualifications — Whether impairments, duration and restrictions were verified under ODSPA s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report and charts completed by family physician — Psychiatric diagnoses and treatment history corroborated — Consistency between sworn testimony and medical documentation accepted — Verification by prescribed professional satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Substantial restrictions — Whether substantial impairments produced substantial restrictions in personal care, community and workplace under ODSPA s. 4(1)(b) — ADLI indicating severe and moderate restrictions — Workplace functioning limited, social interactions constrained, personal care slowed — Evidence of persistent symptoms and failed treatments accepted — Substantial restrictions found | Pensions and social benefits — Review of disability status — Review date — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Consideration of likelihood of improvement — Age and ongoing treatment efforts noted — Determination that impairments may improve — Review date set two years from order date — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt773", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 773 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2508-06028", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5zt", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — Does the Appellant meet s. 4(1) criteria? — Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane applied to “substantial” and separate tests — Continuous or recurrent impairments with substantial restrictions in workplace functioning — Director’s decision found wrong — Appeal granted — Person with a disability determined | Procedure — Tribunal hearing — Additional medical conditions — Should the Tribunal consider additional impairments and restrictions from a psychiatric report? — Objection to terminology “limitations” rejected — Tribunal considers totality of impairments and restrictions — Additional conditions properly before the Tribunal — Consideration of additional conditions allowed | Evidence — Medical verification — Prescribed qualifications — Were impairment, duration and restrictions properly verified under s. 4(1)(c)? — Health Status Report by nurse practitioner and psychiatric report accepted — Verification of continuous or recurrent impairments and likely duration established — Appellant’s credible testimony corroborated — Verification satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — Review of eligibility — Medical review date — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Decision maker satisfied impairments may improve given age and treatment prospects — Review date appropriate — Review date set for three years from the Order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt771", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 771 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2508-06005", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5zq", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether chronic pain impairment is substantial — Flexible meaning of substantial applied (Gray, Crane) — Evidence of persistent multi‑site pain, medications, assistive devices accepted — Substantial restriction in workplace functioning found, ADL Index supports — Director’s decision rescinded, person with a disability determined — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Verification and onus — ODSPA, ss. 4(1)(c), 23(10) — Were impairment, duration and restrictions properly verified by a person with prescribed qualifications? — Health Status Report by physician accepted — Pharmacy and imaging records considered contextually — Appellant bears onus to show Director wrong — Onus met — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairment may improve? — Potential knee surgery and ongoing care plan may reduce pain and mobility impairments — Not satisfied that impairment is not likely to improve — Review date set in two years — Review date ordered" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt770", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 770 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2508-06004", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5zp", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Statutory definition, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions analysed under Gray and Crane — Verified impairments and duration established by physician and specialists — Substantial restriction in workplace functioning found — Director’s decision wrong under s. 23(10) — Appeal granted | Procedure — Social Benefits Tribunal — Late evidence under O. Reg. 222/98, ss. 64, 65 — Should the Tribunal accept clarifying medical evidence filed less than 30 days before the hearing? — Evidence found relevant and clarificatory of the HSR, not new conditions — Tribunal exercised discretion and assigned appropriate weight — Evidence accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanism — Review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set where impairments may improve — Age and active medical management considered — Ongoing medication and specialist referrals noted — Reasonable possibility of improvement over time — Review date set for three years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt760", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 760 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2508-05785", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5z5", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Does the Appellant meet the definition in s. 4(1)? — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Verified impairments and duration established — Cumulative impact assessed across personal care, community and workplace — Tribunal satisfied definition met — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment and restriction — Mental health — Anxiety, depression, possible PTSD — Were impairments and workplace restrictions “substantial” at date of decision? — Gallier context considered — IEWS severe ratings persuasive — Panic attacks, social isolation, concentration and attention deficits — ADLI afforded limited weight — Substantial restriction in workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanism — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set? — Impairments may improve to allow return to full-time work — Decision maker not satisfied impairment unlikely to improve — Review date fixed two years from Order — Income support otherwise payable under s. 17 — Review date set | Procedure — Onus of proof — Social benefits appeal — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Is the onus on the Appellant to show the Director was wrong? — Tribunal applies statutory onus — Appellant’s testimony and medical evidence accepted — Totality of evidence standard articulated — Director’s decision overturned — Appeal allowed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt756", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 756 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2508-05717", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5z1", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant met the statutory definition at the time of the Director’s decision — Guidance from Gray and Crane on “substantial” applied — Director’s decision rescinded — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Verification requirements — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1)(c) — Were the impairments, duration, and restrictions verified by a person with prescribed qualifications? — Health Status Report, ADL Index, and supplemental medical information accepted — Family physician and psychologist findings aligned with testimony — Verification established | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Substantial impairment and restriction — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1)(a), (b) — Do substantial impairments result in substantial restriction in activities of daily living, particularly workplace function? — Gallier considered on individualised assessment — Evidence of severe anxiety and functional barriers — Workplace function substantially restricted — Disability status confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA administration — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for a determination that a person is a person with a disability? — Age, pending treatment, and potential for improvement considered — Review date fixed two years from the order — Review ordered" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt753", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 753 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2508-05701", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5xx", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of “person with a disability” — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Is the Appellant a person with a disability at the time of the Director’s decision? — Verified continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year or more — Credible testimony and medical evidence preferred over summary adjudication — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Evidence — Administrative tribunals — New medical evidence — O. Reg. 222/98, ss. 47(7), 64(1)(a) — Admissibility of documents in Form 5 package post‑dating the Director’s decision — Omar and Jemiolo applied — Evidence must relate to condition at decision date — Later‑arising impairments or worsening support reapplication — Post‑decision portions given no weight — Relevant historical portions considered | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Do substantial impairments result in substantial restriction in a workplace? — Intellectual and Emotional Wellness Scale and ADLI support substantial impact — Severe social and generalised anxiety affecting employability — Gallier considered on person‑specific assessment — Substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — Review and reassessment — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date where further clinical options exist — Impairment not shown unlikely to improve — Tribunal mindful of untried treatments and potential improvement — Review period appropriate — Review date set six months from Order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt752", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 752 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2508-05677", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5xw", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Gray v. Director, 2002 CanLII 7805 (ON CA) and Crane, 2006 CanLII 38348 (ON CA) applied — Onus under s. 23(10) to show Director wrong — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Substantial impairments and restrictions — Whether impairments and cumulative effect result in substantial restriction in activities of daily living — Medical evidence, HSR, IEWS and ADLI considered — Gallier, 2000 CanLII 49294 (ON SCDC) on individualised assessment — Spondylosis, stenosis, anxiety and depression found substantial — Substantial restriction in workplace function found — Impairments and restrictions found substantial | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — Whether to set a review date under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Age and possible improvement with treatment considered — Evidence of ongoing impairments acknowledged — Determination that impairment may improve — Review date set for three years — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt750", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 750 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2508-05633", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5xt", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) criteria met — Were the Appellant’s impairments and restrictions substantially verified at the Director’s decision date — Gray and Gallier applied to assess substantial impairment and restriction — Medical evidence and credible testimony accepted — Onus under s. 23(10) satisfied — Appeal granted | Procedure — Social Benefits Tribunal — Late evidence — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 65(3) discretion — Should late Form 5 medical documents be admitted despite regulatory time limits — Prejudice to Respondent outweighed by prejudice to Appellant if excluded — Relevance to issues before the Tribunal established — Additional evidence admitted | Evidence — Admissibility and weight — Temporal relevance of medical reports — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 64(1)(a) — Must new medical evidence relate to the condition at the Director’s decision date — Omar and Jemiolo followed — Reports presumed current unless indicating otherwise — Post‑decision developments given no weight — Documents admitted, portions post‑decision given no weight | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairments may improve with ongoing treatment — Continuing treatment aimed at reducing impact noted — Decision maker satisfied a review is appropriate — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt747", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 747 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2508-05567", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5xq", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Disability definition — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Does the Appellant meet the definition of “person with a disability”? — Application of Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario to substantiality and three-part test — Weight of consistent testimony and forms assessed under s. 23(10) — Director’s decision found wrong — Person with a disability confirmed — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Medical evidence — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(c) — Were impairments, duration and restrictions verified by a prescribed person? — Health Status Report, IEWS and ADLI completed by family doctors — Psychiatric consultation contextualising onset and symptoms — Change of family doctors explained — Verification requirements satisfied — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(b) — Do substantial impairments cause substantial restrictions in daily living and workplace function? — Reliance on ADLI severe and moderate ratings — Gallier considered to assess person in own situation — Inability to perform physical or sedentary employment found — Substantial restriction established — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Evidence and burden — Tribunal assessment — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Did the Appellant discharge the onus to show the Director was wrong? — Cumulative IEWS ratings and credible testimony accepted despite limited records — Substantiality treated as flexible and contextual per Gray — Director’s determination overturned — Burden met — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanism — Reassessment — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be imposed? — Consideration of age and pursuit of treatment with new family doctor — Likelihood of improvement not excluded — Review date fixed — Two-year review set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt740", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 740 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2508-05355", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5xg", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether Appellant met s. 4(1) ODSPA at date of decision — Onus under ODSPA s. 23(10) satisfied — Medical and functional evidence accepted — Tribunal satisfied impairments and restrictions met statutory thresholds — Decision of Director rescinded — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Whether impairments, duration, and restrictions were verified under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report by psychological associate accepted — IEWS and ADLI completed — Continuous or recurrent conditions expected to last one year or more — Verification of ASD, ADHD, and MD established — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment and restriction — Activities of daily living — Whether cumulative effects caused substantial workplace restriction under s. 4(1)(a) and (b) — Guidance applied from Gray and Crane — Evidence of unemployment, moderate and severe ratings, and treatment considered — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Substantial impairment and restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Decision maker not satisfied impairments are not likely to improve — Young age and continued treatment support periodic review — Review date fixed for one year — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt738", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 738 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2508-05342", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5xd", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” at the time of the Director’s decision — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Cumulative impairments from fibromyalgia and obstructive sleep apnea — Substantial restriction in the workplace established — Appeal granted | Procedure — Extension of time — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 23(2) — Whether to extend the 30‑day deadline to appeal under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 61(1) — Intention to appeal and efforts to proceed established — Reasonable grounds for extension and apparent grounds for appeal found — Extension to file the appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date for a determination that a person is a person with a disability — Impairments may improve to allow return to full‑time employment — Review mechanism engaged to reassess disability status — Review date set for one year from the order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt732", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 732 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2507-05283", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5x6", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — ODSPA s. 4(1) applied — Onus under s. 23(10) — Evidence from Health Status Report and Disability Determination Package considered — Director’s decision found wrong — Income support payable under s. 17 of O. Reg. 222/98 — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Definition — Person with a disability — Does the Appellant meet s. 4(1) ODSPA? — Three separate tests addressed — Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario considered — Verification by a person with prescribed qualifications accepted — Flexible meaning of “substantial” adopted — Tribunal satisfied all elements of s. 4(1) met — Person with a disability determined | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment — Are bilateral rotator cuff tendinopathy and migraine substantial? — Medical evidence and testimony weighed on a balance of probabilities — Family physician’s HSR and supplemental reports relied upon — Totality of evidence approach described — Constant shoulder pain and severe headaches 3–5 days a week established — Impairments found substantial | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial restriction — Do impairments cause substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace? — Gallier applied to the Appellant’s own situation — ADLI and IEWS limitations noted — Unpredictable migraines, environmental restrictions, and physical limitations preclude employment or retraining — Substantial restriction in workplace functioning established — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Limited follow‑up from pain specialist — Treatment not exhausted and sinus procedure pending — Decision maker not satisfied impairment is not likely to improve — Review date set for one year from the Order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt731", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 731 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2507-05274", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5x5", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility — Person with a disability under s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Guidance from Gray and Crane on “substantial” — Evidence from Disability Determination Package and testimony weighed — Director’s decision rescinded — If otherwise eligible, income support to be paid — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Definition — Substantial impairment — Whether the Appellant had a substantial physical or mental impairment that is continuous or recurrent and expected to last one year or more under s. 4(1)(a) — Addictions-related impairments found substantial on balance of probabilities — Flexible concept of substantiality applied with Gray and Crane — Person with a disability confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Were the impairment, likely duration, and restrictions verified by a person with the prescribed qualifications under s. 4(1)(c)? — Registered Nurse and Nurse Practitioner documentation accepted — Health Status Report and supplemental medical evidence relied upon — Verification requirement satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Do substantial impairments result in a substantial restriction in the ability to function in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b)? — Intellectual and Emotional Wellness Scale indicating severe and moderate symptoms — Limited work history and missed treatment follow up — Substantial restriction in workplace function found | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Medical review date — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Decision maker may set review unless impairment not likely to improve — Limited treatment to date noted — Review date set three years from the Order — Appeal granted and review scheduled" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt728", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 728 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2507-04655", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5x2", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility determination — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability under ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Tribunal evaluates verified impairments and restrictions, applies Gray and Crane — Director’s decision found wrong under s. 23(10) — Appeal granted — Decision rescinded — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Definition of person with a disability — Timing of assessment — Whether status under ODSPA, s. 4(1) was met at the date of the Director’s decision — Medical verification accepted under s. 4(1)(c) — Evidence from HSR, IEWS, ADLI and testimony credited — Determination made on whole person, consistent with Gray — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment — Mental health and polio-related conditions — Whether impairments were “substantial” under ODSPA, s. 4(1)(a) — Depression, major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, polio sequelae accepted — Gray and Crane applied, flexible meaning of substantial — Treatment history and clinical scales persuasive — Substantial impairment established | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace and personal care functioning — Whether impairments caused “substantial restrictions” under ODSPA, s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier applied to assess restrictions in the Appellant’s own context — ADLI ratings, counselling note, sworn testimony accepted — Inability to maintain full time employment found — Substantial restriction established | Pensions and social benefits — Review of eligibility — Review date — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Consideration of likelihood of improvement given age and treatment plans — Determination that impairments may improve with further treatment — Review mechanism appropriate — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt726", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 726 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-03", "docket_number": "2506-04136", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5x0", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) definition applied — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability at the time of the Director’s decision — Onus under ODSPA s. 23(10) — Director’s decision rescinded — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial impairments — Major Depression impairments assessed on totality of evidence — Whether impairments were “substantial” within s. 4(1)(a) — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Treatment absence not determinative per Jemiolo — IEWS ratings and credible testimony accepted — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial restrictions — Workplace functioning as activity of daily living under s. 4(1)(b) — Whether impairments resulted in substantial restriction in a workplace — Individualised assessment per Gallier — ADLI and IEWS ratings considered with testimony — Inability to engage in physical or sedentary employment — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Willingness to explore treatment options and prospect of improvement noted — Decision maker not satisfied impairment is not likely to improve — Review date set for one year — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt793", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 793 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-02", "docket_number": "2509-06117", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk60q", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility determination — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability under s. 4(1) — Application of staged medical review framework — Evidence from family physician and testimony assessed — Director’s decision reconsidered under ODSPA — Appeal allowed and benefits reinstated — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of disability — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) criteria — Continuous or recurrent impairment and substantial restrictions verified — Activities of daily living analysed, personal care, community, workplace — Medical Review Form Part A supports no improvement — Person with a disability confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Medical review — Was there a change for the better in impairments or restrictions? — Staged approach applied, inquiry ends absent improvement — Family physician notes “No change” and poor prognosis — Director’s written summary acknowledges no improvement — Recipient continues to be a person with a disability | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Burden of proof — Whether the Appellant satisfied s. 23(10) ODSPA onus — Health Status Report and Medical Review Forms considered — Consistent testimony accepted — Director’s decision found wrong on medical review — Decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — Whether a review date should be set under s. 5(1) O. Reg. 222/98 — Decision maker may set date unless impairment not likely to improve — Age and potential for treatment considered despite longstanding symptoms — Three‑year review date fixed — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Review date set in three years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt792", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 792 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-02", "docket_number": "2509-06114", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk60p", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) at the date of decision — Onus under s. 23(10) addressed — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied to substantiality — Medical evidence and testimony accepted — Decision of Director rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed professional evidence — Was s. 4(1)(c) verification of impairments, duration, and restrictions established? — Cumming confirms verification is mandatory — Family doctor’s HSR and IEWS accepted — PTSD impairments excluded as less than one year — Sandiford clarifies scope of verification — Verification satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Did anxiety-related impairments cause substantial restriction under s. 4(1)(b)? — Gallier endorses contextual assessment — IEWS and ADL Index show severe and moderate limitations — Increased duloxetine dosage and counselling noted — Credible testimony of isolation and panic — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Medical review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set? — Ongoing treatment and potential improvement considered — Decision maker satisfied impairment may improve — Review date fixed four years from Order — Income support otherwise payable under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt784", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 784 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-02", "docket_number": "2509-06078", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk609", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions assessed cumulatively — Guidance applied from Gray and Crane — Burden on Appellant under s. 23(10) met — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Decision of Director rescinded — Appeal granted | Procedure — Social benefits appeals — Late evidence — O. Reg. 222/98, ss. 64, 65 — Should late medical evidence be admitted — Relevance to condition at date of decision — No prejudice to Director — Tribunal discretion to accept, refuse or adjourn exercised — Evidence admitted and weight assessed for proximity and relevance — Late medical evidence admitted | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Likelihood of improvement considered given age and ongoing treatment — New pain clinic consultations noted — Determination that impairments may improve — Review date established four years from the order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt782", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 782 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-02", "docket_number": "2509-06074", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk607", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability eligibility — ODSPA s. 4(1) — Whether Appellant’s impairments were substantial and resulted in substantial restrictions in workplace functioning — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane applied — Evidence from HSR, IEWS and testimony weighed cumulatively — Function in workplace substantially restricted at decision date — Appeal granted, person with a disability found | Procedure — Onus of proof — ODSPA s. 23(10) — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Tribunal entitled to consider Appellant in own situation per Gallier — Medical verification and credible testimony aligned — Totality of evidence assessed on balance of probabilities — Onus discharged | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanism — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairments may improve? — Age and continued efforts at treatment considered — New medication initiated, prospects of improvement noted — Determination that impairments not fixed — Review date set for two years from Order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt781", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 781 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-02", "docket_number": "2509-06071", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk606", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of “person with a disability” — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Did the Appellant meet the definition in subsection 4(1)? — Guidance from Gray and Crane considered — Verified bilateral hip osteoarthritis and restrictions accepted — Director’s decision wrong under subs. 23(10) — Person with a disability found — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Whether substantial impairments resulted in a substantial restriction in the workplace — Gallier applied to assess restrictions in the Appellant’s own situation — Severe and moderate ADLI limitations aligned with verified restrictions — Cane use and limited standing and walking established — Substantial workplace restriction found — Disability determination confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set? — Appellant’s age and continued efforts at treatment considered — Ongoing follow-up with orthopedic surgeon noted — Impairments may improve to where they are no longer substantial — Review date fixed for two years — Review date set | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Burden of proof — ODSPA, subs. 23(10) — Was the onus met to show the Director was wrong? — Health Status Report, imaging and credible testimony relied upon — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions established on a balance of probabilities — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt769", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 769 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-02", "docket_number": "2508-06003", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5zn", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Substantial impairment — Whether impairments were substantial within ODSPA s. 4(1)(a) — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario considered — Chronic back and neck pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, left knee condition, hyperthyroidism — Continuous or recurrent and expected to last one year or more — Substantiality assessed on totality of evidence — Appellant found to have substantial impairments — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Substantial restriction — Did the impairments result in a substantial restriction in activities of daily living under s. 4(1)(b)? — Function in the workplace analysed with contextual factors per Gallier — ADL Index ratings and testimony on mobility, sitting, standing, and fine motor limits — Direct and cumulative effect established — Function in the workplace substantially restricted — Person with a disability within s. 4(1) confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Verification — Were impairment, likely duration, and restrictions verified under s. 4(1)(c)? — Health Status Report completed by physician with prescribed qualifications — Diagnostic imaging, specialist follow‑up, medication adjustments, and surgery documented — Verification requirements satisfied at date of Director’s decision — Burden under s. 23(10) met — Director’s decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA administration — Review date — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Ongoing Graves’ disease management and evolving orthopedic care noted — Prognosis described as unknown — Reasonable possibility of improvement with further treatment — Person with a disability determination maintained — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt766", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 766 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-02", "docket_number": "2508-05979", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5zj", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of “person with a disability” — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant met the three-part test — Gray v. Director and Crane applied to interpret “substantial” flexibly — Medical verification and testimony accepted — Tribunal satisfied impairments were substantial and continuous or recurrent — Person with a disability determined | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(b) — Do substantial impairments cause substantial restriction in workplace function — Gallier considered in contextual assessment — ADLI and IEWS ratings consistent with testimony — Cumulative effects of pain, fatigue, depression, mobility limits and concentration deficits — Substantial restriction in workplace function found | Pensions and social benefits — Review of eligibility — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set — Impairments not likely to improve given age, nature of conditions, persistence despite intervention — Continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year or more — Review date not set | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus of proof — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Has the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Medical documentation and credible testimony outweigh Director’s determination — Substantial impairments and restrictions established on balance of probabilities — Decision of Director rescinded and appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt759", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 759 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-02", "docket_number": "2508-05777", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5z4", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of “person with a disability” — ODSP Act, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability — Guidance from Gray and Crane on “substantial” — Medical verification by family physician accepted — Tribunal satisfied requirements of paras. (a) to (c) met — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment and restriction — Chronic back pain and major depression — Whether substantial impairments and substantial restrictions were proven — IEWS and ADLI ratings considered with testimony — Gallier applied to assess person in own situation — Workplace functioning substantially restricted at decision date — Appellant found substantially impaired and restricted — Appellant a person with a disability | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set where impairment may improve — Ongoing treatment noted by Tribunal — Capacity to improve considered against current substantial impairments — Review timeline fixed consistent with regulation — Review date set for three years | Procedure — Onus and standard — Tribunal appeal under ODSP Act — Whether the onus under s. 23(10) was met — More likely than not standard applied — Director’s decision assessed against cumulative medical and testimonial evidence — Verification by person with prescribed qualifications weighed — Onus discharged by Appellant — Director’s decision rescinded" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt754", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 754 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-02", "docket_number": "2508-05707", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5xz", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Evidence — Administrative tribunals — Admissibility and weight of new medical evidence — Are documents created after the Director’s decision admissible and what weight do they carry? — Omar and Jemiolo applied to s. 47(7) and s. 64(1)(a) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Evidence tied to the decision date considered — Post‑decision material afforded no weight — Partial admission and limited weight | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial impairment under ODSPA s. 4(1)(a) — Did the appellant have a continuous or recurrent impairment expected to last a year or more? — Gray and Crane interpreted — Chronic pain syndrome verified by prescribed professional — Medical and sworn testimony credited — Person with a disability status recognized — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial restriction in activities of daily living — Did the impairments substantially restrict the ability to function in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b)? — Gallier applied to individual circumstances — IEWS and ADLI findings relied upon — Strength, stamina, sitting, standing, mobility limitations established — Substantial workplace restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairment may improve with ongoing treatment? — Continuing clinical management and pending pain clinic referral noted — Decision maker satisfied a review is appropriate — Review date set at one year from order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt727", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 727 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-02", "docket_number": "2506-04294", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5x1", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant meets the statutory definition of person with a disability — Verification by a person with prescribed qualifications accepted — Continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year or more established — Decision of Director rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Substantial impairments and restrictions — Do the Appellant’s heart failure and diabetes cause substantial restrictions in activities of daily living? — Guidance applied from Gray and Crane, contextual evidence from Gallier — Testimony, DDP, IEWS, ADLI, specialist and hospital reports, treatment regime — Workplace functioning substantially restricted at time of decision — Person with a disability confirmed — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Review dates — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for the disability determination? — Impairments not likely to improve given age, nature of conditions and persistent impairments despite intervention — Determination made without review date — No review date set | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus of proof — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — On whom lies the onus to satisfy the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong? — Appellant’s credible testimony corroborated by medical verification and treatment evidence — Burden discharged on balance of probabilities — Director’s decision overturned — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt716", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 716 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-02", "docket_number": "2509-06082", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk60d", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) ODSPA — Substantial physical impairments and substantial restrictions assessed — Verified restrictions in workplace functioning, sitting, walking and driving — Family Physician HSR and ADLI, specialist reports and oral testimony reviewed — Director’s decision found wrong under s. 23(10) — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — ODSPA s. 4(1) — Meaning of substantial — How should “substantial” in s. 4(1) be interpreted? — Gray v. Director, ODSP applied for flexible meaning consistent with the purposes of the Act — Crane v. Ontario confirms three separate tests and possible evidentiary overlap between paras. (a) and (b) — Flexible, purposive interpretation applied | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP review — Review date — Whether to set a review date under the Regulation, s. 5(1) — Active treatment with medical specialists may offer benefit — Impairment not shown as unlikely to improve — Two‑year review date appropriate to reassess restrictions and treatment modalities — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt707", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 707 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-02", "docket_number": "2509-06152", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk611", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — Whether appellant met s. 4(1) criteria — Substantial physical and mental impairments found continuous or recurrent — Direct and cumulative effect causing substantial restrictions in workplace functioning — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied to “substantial” — Credible testimony and medical narrative preferred — Appellant found a person with a disability — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification requirements — Prescribed qualifications — Whether impairments, duration and restrictions verified under s. 4(1)(c) — Family physician completed HSR and narrative report — Later narrative clarified severity and duration — IEWS and ADLI not considered in isolation — Weight given to physician’s narrative and clinical observations — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Burden of proof — Onus on appellant — Whether appellant met onus under s. 23(10) to show Director was wrong — Minimal initial documentation explained by limited care and distrust — Subsequent evidence expanded substantiality — Consistent and credible oral testimony — Balance of probabilities satisfied — Director’s decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Review of eligibility — Review date — Whether a review date should be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Ongoing investigations and pending specialist appointments — Hope for more optimum treatment — Decision maker satisfied review appropriate — Review date set for three years — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt678", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 678 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-02", "docket_number": "2508-05642", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5vr", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Disability definition — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Guidance from Gray and Crane on “substantial” and separate tests — Onus to show Director’s decision was wrong, s. 23(10) — Director’s decision rescinded — Person with a disability found — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Whether impairments, likely duration, and restrictions were verified under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report completed by physician with prescribed qualifications — Hospitalisation and referrals corroborating conversion disorder — IEWS and ADLI forming part of Disability Determination Package — Verification accepted — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Function in a workplace — Whether substantial impairments resulted in a substantial restriction in the workplace — Evidence of slurred speech, salivation, involuntary movements causing communication barriers — Gallier supports person‑specific assessment — Appellant unable to engage in employment of physical or sedentary nature — Substantial restriction established — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — Whether a review date should be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Ongoing treatment and potential improvement noted by physician — Willingness to seek therapy — Tribunal satisfied a review date is appropriate — Review date set for three years — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt675", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 675 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-02", "docket_number": "2508-05596", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5vl", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether Appellant meets definition in s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Substantial impairment under s. 4(1)(a) assessed on medical evidence and testimony — Onus under s. 23(10) — Guidance from Gray and Crane on “substantial” — Impairments continuous or recurrent and substantial — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Whether impairments result in a substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b) — Tribunal entitled to consider applicant in own situation (Gallier) — ADLI ratings, physician narrative, and credible testimony preferred over summary adjudication — Sedentary employment and retraining not reasonable — Income support ordered | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Assessment of likelihood of improvement — Age, ongoing treatment, and efforts by medical team considered — Not satisfied impairment unlikely to improve permanently — Review date set for reassessment — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt657", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 657 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-02", "docket_number": "2508-05340", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5tp", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets the statutory definition in s. 4(1) — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied to substantial impairment and restriction — Medical verification under HSR and ADLI considered — Tribunal satisfied definition met — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Onus on Appellant — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Tribunal assessed totality of evidence, including testimony and medical records — Director’s determination not sustained — Decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment and restriction — Workplace function — Whether impairments were cumulatively substantial and caused substantial restriction in workplace — HSR, MRI, orthopedic assessments and ADLI ratings considered — Pain, stiffness, mobility limits, sleep impaired, assistive devices and treatment reviewed — Substantial restriction in workplace found — Income support to be paid if otherwise eligible | Pensions and social benefits — Reviews — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Review date — Whether to set a review date for disability determination — Potential for improvement in impairments noted — Balance of medical evidence and personal circumstances considered — Review date set for two years from order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt641", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 641 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-02", "docket_number": "2507-04791", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5sz", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Failure to provide information — Whether the Administrator correctly cancelled assistance for failure to provide required information and nondisclosure of co‑residency — Ontario Works Act, 1997, s. 7, s. 14, s. 28(11), Ontario Regulation 134/98, s. 14 — Co‑residency evidence from licences, mortgage, taxes, insurance — Appeal dismissed | Statutory interpretation — Definitions — Spouse and dependant — Whether a legally married spouse residing in the same dwelling place is a “spouse” or “dependant” under Ontario Regulation 134/98, s. 1 and Family Law Act, s. 30 — Nassar v. Ontario considered on “dwelling place” — Relationship to dwelling and financial interdependence assessed — Administrator’s decision affirmed | Procedure — Tribunal appeals — Burden of proof — Whether the Appellant met the onus under s. 28(11) of the Ontario Works Act, 1997 to show the decision was wrong — Clear, convincing and cogent evidence standard applied — Conflicting and unreliable testimony found — Onus not met — Appeal dismissed | Evidence — Weight of materials — Internal policy documents — Whether an internal Ministry Clearing House issue should inform statutory interpretation — Internal policy given no weight, legislation and higher court decisions govern — Rea v. Simcoe cited on centrality of disclosure — Credibility concerns noted in assessing sworn evidence — Document given no weight" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt632", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 632 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-02", "docket_number": "2505-03224", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5ss", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility — Is the Appellant a “person with a disability” under s. 4(1)? — Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane applied to cumulative mental health impairments — Director’s decision found wrong under s. 23(10) — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Verification — Were the impairments, likely duration, and restrictions verified by a person with prescribed qualifications under s. 4(1)(c)? — Health Status Report and Activities of Daily Living Index completed by general practitioner — Psychiatric assessment and IEWS considered — Verification accepted as continuous or recurrent and expected to last one year or more — Claim allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Substantial impairment — Whether the Appellant had substantial mental impairments within s. 4(1)(a) — Flexible assessment under Gray and Crane — Cumulative anxiety and depressive disorders, pharmacotherapy, and treatment attempts — IEWS severe and moderate ratings persuasive — Substantiality established at date of decision — Finding of disability confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Do the substantial impairments result in a substantial restriction in workplace functioning under s. 4(1)(b)? — Gallier considered to assess restrictions in personal context — Evidence of inability to tolerate high stress and productivity demands — ADLI and IEWS aligned with testimony — Substantial workplace restriction established — Disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Medical review — Review date — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Determination that impairments may improve to enable full-time work — Decision maker satisfied a review is appropriate — Review date fixed two years from order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt631", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 631 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-02", "docket_number": "2505-03202", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5sr", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) of the Act — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction assessed cumulatively — Activities of daily living and function in the workplace analysed — Medical evidence from GP and psychologist accepted — Decision of Director rescinded — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Evidence — New medical evidence — Post-decision reports — Whether new medical evidence relates to the Appellant’s condition at the time of the Director’s decision — Guidance from Omar and Jemiolo applied — Presumption that reports speak as of their date rebutted by explicit indication — Verification by persons with prescribed qualifications accepted — New medical chart considered | Statutory interpretation — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction — Meaning of “substantial” informed by Gray — Three separate tests under s. 4(1) considered per Crane — Flexible, individualised assessment tied to purposes of the Act — Overlap between paras. (a) and (b) evidence recognised — Definition applied to Appellant’s circumstances — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Decision maker may set date unless satisfied impairment not likely to improve — Evidence suggested impairments may improve to enable full-time work — Review date established — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt625", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 625 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-03-02", "docket_number": "2504-02352", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5sk", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Is the Appellant a person with a disability under s. 4(1)? — Medical verification through HSR, IEWS and ADLI — Evidence of pain, mobility limits, memory loss, assistive devices — Cumulative impacts on personal care, community and workplace functioning — Appeal granted | Procedure — Burden of proof — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 23(10) — Has the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal the Director’s decision was wrong? — Weighing testimony and medical records proximate to decision date — Reliability concerns addressed by corroborating documentation — Totality of the evidence supports eligibility — Director’s decision rescinded | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits — Meaning of “substantial” — How should “substantial impairment” and “substantial restriction” in s. 4(1) be interpreted? — Gray v. Director ODSP applied to flexible, purposive meaning — Crane confirms three separate tests with possible evidentiary overlap — Gallier permits contextual assessment of the individual — Interpretation applied | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set? — Impairments continuous or recurrent and not likely to improve — Ongoing memory loss, pain, limited treatment engagement, increased Olanzapine dosage — Decision maker satisfied no improvement likely to below substantial — No review date directed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt717", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 717 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-27", "docket_number": "2509-06095", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk60k", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) definition — Continuous or recurrent mental impairments expected to last one year or more — Verified by a person with prescribed qualifications — Tribunal satisfied requirements of s. 4(1) met at the date of decision — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairments and restrictions — ODSPA eligibility — Whether substantial impairment and substantial restriction established under s. 4(1)(a), (b) — IEWS and ADLI severe ratings considered with testimony on self-isolation, impulse control, cannabis use — Cumulative effect found to limit workplace functioning — Income support ordered | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Age, treatment barriers, and potential improvement with treatment assessed — Decision maker not satisfied impairment unlikely to improve — Shorter review period selected — Review date set for one year from Order — Review date set | Statutory interpretation — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial” — Whether “substantial” has a flexible, contextual meaning per Gray and Crane — Three separate tests in s. 4(1) require distinct analysis with possible evidentiary overlap — Applicant assessed in own situation per Gallier — Flexible approach applied — Appellant satisfies statutory definition" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt715", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 715 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-27", "docket_number": "2509-06024", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk600", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Disability definition — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Is the Appellant a “person with a disability”? — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction assessed at the date of the Director’s decision — Medical verification through HSR, IEWS and ADLI considered — Credible testimony accepted — Director’s decision wrong under s. 23(10) — Appeal granted | Procedure — Adjournment — Hearing management — Request to adjourn to obtain representation — Whether exceptional circumstances justified delay — Opportunity to obtain representation assessed over several months — Tribunal’s obligation to proceed expeditiously — Adjournment denied and hearing proceeded as scheduled — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits — Meaning of “substantial” — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Interpretation of “substantial impairment” and “substantial restriction” — Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Flexible meaning tied to individual circumstances and purposes of the Act — Overlap of evidence for paras. (a) and (b) recognised — Interpretation applied | Pensions and social benefits — Administration — Review mechanisms — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Impairment not found unlikely to improve — Planned efforts to re‑connect with psychiatry and treatment progress considered — Review date appropriate in the circumstances — Review date set two years from Order — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt712", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 712 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-27", "docket_number": "2508-06022", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5zs", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of “person with a disability” — ODSPA, s. 4(1) criteria applied — Did the Appellant meet the substantial impairment and substantial restriction thresholds? — Gray and Crane considered on flexible meaning of substantial — Medical and testimonial evidence assessed on balance of probabilities — Director’s decision found wrong — Appeal granted | Evidence — Medical evidence — Treating physician — Verification under s. 4(1)(c) — Was uncontradicted evidence from a long‑term family physician entitled to significant weight? — Sheldrick applied regarding failure to reject uncontradicted expert evidence — Disability Determination Package and supplemental records accepted — Verification of impairments and likely duration satisfied — Uncontradicted medical opinion accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial restriction — Workplace functioning — Do the impairments result in a substantial restriction in the ability to function in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b)? — Gallier cited on individualised assessment — Frequent, painful bowel movements and limited sitting tolerance — Home‑based work unrealistic — Substantial restriction in workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where symptomatic treatment may lessen impairments? — No recent gastroenterology reports and potential for treatment change noted — Not satisfied impairment is not likely to improve — Review period indicated — Review date set for two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt710", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 710 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-27", "docket_number": "2509-06097", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk60l", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability within the meaning of s. 4(1) — Onus under s. 23(10) to satisfy the Tribunal the Director’s decision was wrong — Medical evidence and testimony assessed cumulatively — Decision of the Director rescinded, appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial impairments — Are Pain Conditions and Morbid Obesity substantial impairments under s. 4(1)(a)? — Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane applied, flexible and cumulative assessment — Imaging, pain clinic report, prescribed medications and specialist referrals considered — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial restrictions — Whether impairments result in a substantial restriction in the ability to function in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier contextual approach applied, ADLI ratings and mobility limits relied on — Fatigue, pain and limited standing capacity established — Substantial restriction in workplace confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — Should a review date be set under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98? — Physiotherapy not yet engaged, further weight loss options available, potential improvement considered — Review date set for three years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt702", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 702 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-27", "docket_number": "2508-05906", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5zb", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Definition of person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets ODSPA s. 4(1) — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied to substantial impairment and restriction — Medical and testimonial evidence weighed on balance of probabilities — Director’s decision set aside — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA s. 4(1)(c) — Verification requirements — Whether impairments and restrictions were properly verified for duration by a person with prescribed qualifications — Health Status Report accepted for eye and foot conditions — Osteoarthritis and back pain not verified for duration — Unverified conditions cannot be considered under the Act — Unverified impairments disregarded | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial restriction — Workplace functioning — Do substantial impairments result in a substantial restriction in workplace functioning at the time of the Director’s decision — Gallier and Gray considered — Visual disturbance and foot pain limit reading, computer use, standing and walking — Ordinary workplace expectations not sustainable — Substantial workplace restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Review date — Whether a review date should be set given potential for improvement — Age and possible access to further modalities of treatment considered — Determination that impairments may improve to below substantial thresholds — Appeal granted with time-limited status — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt680", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 680 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-27", "docket_number": "2508-05681", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5vv", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Definition of person with a disability — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant met the statutory definition at the time of the Director’s decision — Guidance applied from Gray and Crane — Medical evidence and testimony accepted on balance of probabilities — Person with a disability found — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Personal care — Do substantial impairments result in a substantial restriction in attending to personal care — Gallier considered on contextual assessment — Evidence of difficulty with stairs, showering, dressing, lifting, mobility — ADL Index ratings and corroborating imaging weighed — Substantial restriction in personal care established — Person with a disability confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Review of disability status — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Impairments not likely to improve given degenerative findings and management-focused treatment — Persistence of significant restrictions accepted — No review of the determination directed — No review directed | Pensions and social benefits — Burden of proof — Onus under statute — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 23(10) — Has the Appellant shown the Director’s decision was wrong — Balance of probabilities met through HSR, imaging, pain clinic records, and credible testimony — Director’s decision rescinded — Decision rescinded" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt679", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 679 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-27", "docket_number": "2508-05644", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5vt", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Does the Appellant meet the definition in s. 4(1)? — Onus on Appellant under ODSPA s. 23(10) — Tribunal satisfied on balance of probabilities — Director’s decision rescinded — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Substantial impairment — Whether anxiety and depression were substantial impairments under s. 4(1)(a) — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Health Status Report and psychological assessment accepted — Limited weight on absence of treatment, Jemiolo cited — Substantial impairments found | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Substantial restriction — Do the impairments cause substantial restriction in workplace functioning under s. 4(1)(b)? — Gallier considered on person-specific context — ADL Index ratings severe for shopping, transportation, appointments, social interactions — Predictable attendance and sustained performance undermined — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA administration — Review date — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Decision maker may set review if impairment likely to improve — Age and potential access to treatment considered — Review date set for two years — Review date ordered" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt662", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 662 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-27", "docket_number": "2508-05433", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5tw", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of disability — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Did the Appellant qualify as a person with a disability? — Verification of impairments and restrictions accepted — Gray and Crane guidance referenced — Director’s decision found wrong under s. 23(10) — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial impairment — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(a) — Were the Appellant’s impairments cumulatively substantial? — Psychiatric diagnoses and lumbar degenerative disc disease — Medication history and treatment barriers considered — Flexible interpretation of “substantial” applied to individual circumstances — Impairments held cumulatively substantial — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Activities of daily living — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(b) — Did impairments substantially restrict workplace functioning? — Nurse Practitioner IEWS and ADLI considered — Workplace reliability and social anxiety assessed — Function at home and physical limitations linked to work — Substantial workplace restriction established — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review mechanisms — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set? — Young age and unexhausted treatment options noted — Access to further modalities anticipated — Determination of disability maintained subject to review — Review date set for two years — Review ordered" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt660", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 660 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-27", "docket_number": "2508-05399", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5tt", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability benefits — Statutory definition — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” at the time of the Director’s decision — Three-part test from Crane applied — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction thresholds considered — Director’s decision upheld — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — Disability benefits — Activities of daily living — Whether substantial restrictions proven in personal care, function in the community, or function in a workplace — Gallier principle on person-specific assessment — Adaptations and ability to perform daily tasks evaluated — No substantial restrictions established on balance of probabilities — Decision of the Director affirmed | Procedure — Onus — Social benefits appeals — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 23(10) — On whom lies the burden to show the Director was wrong — Whether the Appellant discharged the burden — Totality of medical evidence and testimony assessed against statutory thresholds — Burden not met — Appeal dismissed | Evidence — Weight — Medical reports and testimony — Reliability of testimony on frequency of infections — Consistency with Health Status Report and physician’s letter — Last serious infection predating the decision period — Functional abilities corroborated by Activities of Daily Living Index — Medical verification accepted but restrictions not substantial — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt659", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 659 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-27", "docket_number": "2508-05353", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5tr", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Definition of disability — Substantial impairment — Whether mental impairments met s. 4(1)(a), Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — IEWS ratings, persistent symptoms despite medication, corroborated by testimony and HSR — Tribunal finds Major Depressive Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder substantial — Appeal granted in part on impairment | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Personal care — Whether substantial restriction under s. 4(1)(b), ODSPA — Contextual analysis per Director, ODSP v. Gallier — ADLI severe physical activity, moderate housekeeping and laundry, reliance on family for meals and groceries, poor grooming and motivation — Direct and cumulative effect established — Substantial restriction in personal care found | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Whether verification satisfied under s. 4(1)(c), ODSPA — Health Status Report by general practitioner with prescribed qualifications — Impairments continuous or recurrent and expected to last one year or more — IEWS and ADLI corroborating — Onus under s. 23(10) met — Verification requirements satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — Review of disability status — Continuing eligibility — Whether a review date should be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Potential improvement with further mental health treatment considered — Decision maker satisfied review appropriate given available treatment options — Two-year review date fixed — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt655", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 655 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-27", "docket_number": "2508-05310", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5tm", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Disability definition — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability under s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Activities of daily living considered — Director’s decision reviewed by Tribunal — Definition applied to medical record and HSR — Appeal denied, Director’s decision affirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed person, duration — Was the likely duration of impairments verified as one year or more under s. 4(1)(c)? — Health Status Report recorded “expected to last less than 1 year” — No contrary verification from a prescribed person — Impairments not considered for the purpose of the hearing — Disability status not established | Evidence — Medical evidence — Lay testimony — Can lay testimony or unverified self-report establish verification of impairment or duration? — Tribunal may not rely on lay testimony for verification — Authorities applied, Cumming, Cherryholme — Medical verification by prescribed person required — Lay evidence insufficient | Pensions and social benefits — Onus — Appeal burden — Does subs. 23(10) place the onus on the Appellant to show the Director was wrong? — Crane confirms three separate tests under s. 4(1) and failure on one ends inquiry — Verification requirement not met — Onus not met, appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt626", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 626 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-27", "docket_number": "2504-02500", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5sl", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of disability — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability under s. 4(1) of the ODSPA — Director’s finding overturned — Tribunal satisfied impairments and substantial restrictions established — Guidance from Gray v. Director and Crane v. Ontario applied — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Medical evidence — Whether impairment, duration and restrictions verified by a prescribed professional under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report and additional records by family doctor accepted — IEWS and ADLI considered — Psychiatric assessment probative though predating decision — Onus under s. 23(10) met — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment and restriction — Activities of daily living — Whether impairments are “substantial” and cause substantial restrictions under s. 4(1)(a) and (b) — Evidence of manic episodes, fatigue, withdrawn state, poor hygiene — Gallier context applied, cumulative effect assessed — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Decision maker satisfied impairment may improve with pharmacotherapy — Appellant’s age and ongoing treatment considered — Review date fixed for two years from the Order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt624", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 624 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-27", "docket_number": "2503-01975R", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5sj", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Social assistance — Overpayments — Whether the Ontario Works overpayment was correctly assessed following late reporting of employment earnings — Application of employment income exemptions and budgetary requirements — Ontario Works Act 1997, s. 28(11) onus on Appellant — No administrative error found — Overpayment of $2,135.31 valid and calculated correctly — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — Social assistance — Recovery — Should recovery be waived or limited due to administrative error or financial hardship — Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 considered on flexible collection — Insufficient evidence of severe financial hardship — No basis for non‑recovery — Arrangements to be made with financial recovery department — Overpayment recoverable, appeal denied" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt619", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 619 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-27", "docket_number": "2508-05364", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5ts", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Definition of person with a disability — Is the Appellant a person with a disability under s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997? — Gray and Crane applied to “substantial” and whole person analysis — BPPV with dizziness and instability continuous or recurrent, expected to last one year or more — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Were impairment, duration and restrictions verified by a person with prescribed qualifications under s. 4(1)(c)? — Health Status Report completed by family physician, monthly care relationship — IEWS and ADLI completed, mental symptoms not present, physical limitations documented — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Personal care — Do substantial impairments result in substantial restrictions under s. 4(1)(b)? — Gallier confirms person-in-context assessment, date of decision focus — Severe and moderate ADLI limitations corroborated by testimony on toileting, bathing, groceries, meal preparation, sitting and standing — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Review date under regulation — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Potential availability of further treatment noted, impairment may improve — Two-year review date appropriate, income support if otherwise eligible under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt706", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 706 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-26", "docket_number": "2509-06591", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk612", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Definition of disability (ODSPA) — Whether the Appellant remained a person with a disability under s. 4(1) — No clinically significant improvement in anxiety, depression and ADHD — Functional restrictions in activities of daily living unchanged since prior grant — Director’s reconsideration contrasted with unchanged clinical evidence — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Medical review framework and onus — How does the two-step improvement test apply on medical review? — Onus on Appellant to show Director wrong under s. 23(10) — No improvement found at step one, no need to proceed to step two — Director’s reliance on lack of treatment rejected — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Evidence — Verification by prescribed professional — Were impairments, duration and restrictions verified under s. 4(1)(c)? — Medical Form Part A completed by family physician confirming impairments, restrictions and duration over one year — Verification of anxiety, depression and ADHD established — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt698", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 698 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-26", "docket_number": "2508-05896", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5wh", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Substantial impairment and restriction — ODSPA, s. 4(1) applied to concussion post motor vehicle accident — Do the Appellant’s impairments and restrictions meet the “substantial” thresholds? — Guidance from Gray and Crane considered — ADLI and IEWS ratings weighed with testimony and medical records — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification requirements — Prescribed qualifications — Can conditions be considered without verification under ODSPA, s. 4(1)(c)? — Absence of qualified confirmation in HSR for fibromyalgia and chronic pain syndrome — Evidence concerning unverified impairments disregarded — Verification by physician for other impairments accepted — Statutory verification threshold enforced — Evidence disregarded | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanism — Prognosis and improvement — Whether a review date should be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Not satisfied impairment unlikely to improve — Age and continued treatment efforts support reassessment — Focus on recovery and potential pharmacological optimisation noted — Timed review appropriate in circumstances — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt688", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 688 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-26", "docket_number": "2508-05763", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5w4", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of “person with a disability” — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) criteria — Substantial impairments found cumulatively, Chronic back pain, Major Depressive Disorder and Anxiety — Substantial restriction in workplace function established — Gray and Crane applied to assess substantiality — Director’s decision found wrong — Appeal granted | Evidence — Medical evidence — Verification under s. 4(1)(c) by person with prescribed qualifications — Whether HSR, IEWS, ADLI and Narrative Letter are sufficiently reliable — Weight accepted despite new Family Doctor relationship — Narrative Letter confirms IEWS and ADLI over relevant period — IEWS sufficiently reliable and of evidential value — Impairments and restrictions properly verified | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — Whether to set a review date under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Satisfaction that impairment not likely to improve required — Appellant’s age and unexhausted treatments considered — Review date set for three years — Appeal granted with review date set three years from the Order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt681", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 681 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-26", "docket_number": "2508-05728", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5vw", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Did the Appellant have substantial impairments and substantial restrictions at the date of decision? — Guidance from Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane v. Director ODSP applied — Cumulative impact on workplace function found substantial — Totality of evidence approach — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Verification — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(c) — Were the impairments, likely duration and restrictions verified by a person with prescribed qualifications? — Family doctor completed Health Status Report and IEWS with detailed ratings — Verification accepted as continuous or recurrent and expected to last one year or more — Verification established | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Did the Appellant satisfy the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong? — Appellant’s credible testimony consistent with medical evidence — Consideration of treatment efforts per Jemiolo v ODSP — Weighing evidence on substantiality and restriction — Onus discharged | Pensions and social benefits — Administration of benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for a person found to be a person with a disability? — Decision maker may set review unless impairment not likely to improve — Appellant’s age and ongoing treatment attempts considered — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt669", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 669 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-26", "docket_number": "2508-05476", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5v4", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA — Disability determination — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” within s. 4(1) — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Medical evidence and credible testimony accepted — Cumulative impairments from abdominal pain and bipolar disorder found substantial — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA — Verification of impairments — Were impairments, duration and restrictions verified by a prescribed professional under s. 4(1)(c)? — Family Doctor’s HSR, IEWS and ADLI accepted — ADHD-related impairments unverified and disregarded — Onus under ODSPA s. 23(10) met through verified conditions — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA — Substantial restriction in activities of daily living — Did impairments cause substantial workplace restriction under s. 4(1)(b)? — Gray and Gallier considered — IEWS and ADLI severe and moderate ratings relied on — Workplace sitting and physical activity limitations established — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA — Review date — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Age and ongoing treatment efforts support periodic review — Impairments may improve — Review date fixed three years from order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt654", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 654 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-26", "docket_number": "2507-05277", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5tk", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) definition — Whether the Appellant meets the statutory criteria — Onus on Appellant under ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Verified impairments and duration established by prescribed professional — Medical evidence and credible testimony accepted — Director’s decision found wrong — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability criteria — Substantial impairments and restrictions — Interpretation of “substantial” in Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Do the impairments and their effects reach the substantial threshold? — Evidence of non‑epileptic seizures, anxiety, polyarthritis considered — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Administration — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Young Appellant, barriers to treatment, potential for improvement — Ongoing treatment efforts and access issues noted — Income support otherwise payable under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt644", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 644 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-26", "docket_number": "2507-04968", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5t2", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Definition of person with a disability — Does the Appellant meet s. 4(1) of the ODSPA at the date of decision? — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Flexible meaning of substantial assessed in individual circumstances — Three separate tests addressed — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment and restriction — Cumulative effect — Were substantial impairments and substantial restrictions established? — Bilateral knee arthritis and obesity verified in HSR — ADLI severe ratings for mobility, stairs, housekeeping, laundry — X‑ray showing moderate to severe compartment narrowing relied upon — Testimony reliable and persuasive — Substantial impairments and restrictions established | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Decision maker satisfied impairments may improve — Appellant’s age and imminent bariatric surgery considered — Not satisfied impairments are not likely to improve — Review date set | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus and standard of proof — On whom lies the onus under ODSPA s. 23(10) and was it discharged? — Appellant required to satisfy Tribunal that Director’s decision was wrong — Findings based on medical evidence and testimony — Balance of probabilities applied — Burden discharged, Director’s decision rescinded, appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt627", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 627 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-26", "docket_number": "2504-02646", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5sm", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Director’s finding overturned — Tribunal satisfied criteria in s. 4(1)(a) to (c) are met — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Substantial impairments and restrictions — Were substantial impairments and substantial restrictions in activities of daily living established at the time of the Director’s decision — Verified by prescribed professionals in HSR, IEWS and ADLI — Medical and psychotherapy records consistent with testimony — Direct and cumulative effect found to be substantial — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP administration — Review date — Should a medical review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Ongoing treatment and potential for improvement considered — Not-to-distant workforce attachment noted — Decision maker satisfied review appropriate — Review date of two years set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt690", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 690 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-25", "docket_number": "2508-05796", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5w6", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Disability determination — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) definition of “person with a disability” — Substantial MDD and GAD impairments found — Direct and cumulative effect causing substantial restriction to function in a workplace — IEWS, ADLI, HSR and oral testimony accepted — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — ODSPA s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial” — How should “substantial” be interpreted under s. 4(1)(a)? — Guidance applied from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Flexible meaning, three separate tests, possible evidentiary overlap — Applied to mental health impairments — Interpretation applied, impairments found substantial | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Medical evidence — Were impairments and restrictions verified by a person with prescribed qualifications under s. 4(1)(c)? — Nurse Practitioner HSR, IEWS, ADLI and amended documents — Continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year or more — Specific workplace-related restrictions verified — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for the disability determination? — Decision maker satisfied a date is appropriate — Relatively young age and potential improvement with sustained therapy — Review date set three years from the Order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt687", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 687 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-25", "docket_number": "2508-05755", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5w3", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant meets the statutory definition at the time of the Director’s decision — Guidance from Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Medical verification by nurse practitioner accepted — Tribunal satisfied impairments and restrictions meet statutory thresholds — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Disability assessment — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions — Do chronic pain, chronic insomnia and major depressive disorder constitute substantial impairments causing substantial restrictions in activities of daily living? — IEWS and ADLI ratings persuasive — Gallier contextual analysis applied — Limited treatment not determinative per Jemiolo — Cumulative effect established on balance of probabilities — Substantial restriction in workplace function found | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for the disability determination? — Impairments not likely to improve — Age and prognosis considered — Nurse practitioner indicated expected deterioration — Tribunal satisfied no review required — No review date set | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus of proof — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Did the Appellant satisfy the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong? — Evidence from Disability Determination Package and testimony accepted — Standard of more likely than not met — Director’s assessment of substantiality overturned — Decision rescinded and entitlement confirmed — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt686", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 686 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-25", "docket_number": "2508-05753", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5w2", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Social assistance — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” under s. 4(1) — Onus under subs. 23(10) to show Director’s decision was wrong — Medical verification by psychologist accepted — Appeal granted and Director’s decision rescinded — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Substantial impairment — Meaning of “substantial” in s. 4(1)(a) guided by Gray and Crane — PTSD with delayed expression and major depressive disorder, recurrent, severe, with anxious distress — IEWS severe and moderate ratings persuasive — Totality of evidence approach — Were the Appellant’s mental health impairments substantial? — Substantial impairments found | Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Substantial restriction — Whether impairments caused substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier considered individual context — ADLI severe ratings and mental health restrictions chart relied upon — Credible testimony on panic, noise triggers, and limited outings — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Treatment considerations — Whether lack of treatment warrants a negative inference — Jemiolo recognised treatment as relevant but not required — Barriers to treatment due to impairments and past adverse medication effects — Tribunal declined negative inference on limited intervention — Substantiality assessed on totality of evidence — Negative inference declined | Pensions and social benefits — Administration of benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date where impairment may improve — Appellant obtaining new family physician and pursuing treatment — Decision maker satisfied impairments may improve — Review date established two years from Order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt683", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 683 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-25", "docket_number": "2508-05747", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5vz", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant meets the statutory definition — Onus under s. 23(10) to show the Director was wrong — Verified impairments and duration established by prescribed professional — Tribunal satisfied criteria met at the time of decision — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Substantial impairment — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(a) — Meaning of “substantial” interpreted flexibly per Gray and Crane — Whether chronic daily headaches and related symptoms were substantial — Medical evidence and testimony accepted — Ongoing investigations and treatment support substantiality — Finding of substantial impairment | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Substantial restriction — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(b) — Whether impairments caused substantial restriction in activities of daily living — Workplace functioning unpredictably limited by frequent severe headaches — Gallier applied to assess restrictions in personal context — ADLI and specialist evidence considered — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA administration — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date for disability determination — Specialist identified extensive recommendations and planned follow up — Potential for improvement realistic — Review date appropriately fixed — Review date set one year from order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt674", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 674 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-25", "docket_number": "2508-05589", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5vj", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Statutory interpretation — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial” — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Should “substantial” be interpreted flexibly and contextually to the individual? — Three separate tests requiring separate analysis — Onus on appellant under s. 23(10) — Interpretation applied — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Workplace functioning — Whether substantial restriction in a realistic workplace established — Verified impairments from fibromyalgia and Graves disease — IEWS and ADLI ratings considered in context — Gallier approach applied to individual situation — Low education, limited English, fatigue, pain, poor exertional capacity — Director’s decision rescinded — Income support payable if otherwise eligible | Pensions and social benefits — Review of disability status — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairments are under early treatment? — Graves disease remission prospects with anti‑thyroidal drugs noted — Further modalities for fibromyalgia outstanding — Improvement not excluded — Review date set for one year — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt671", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 671 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-25", "docket_number": "2508-05572", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5v9", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP financial eligibility — Calculation of income support — Was the Director correct to deny income support for financial ineligibility? — Board and Lodge budgetary requirements set at $1,037.00 — Monthly income $1,924.41 exceeds requirements by $887.41 — Section 11 ODSP Act applied — Program of last resort noted — Appeal denied | Statutory interpretation — ODSP Act and O. Reg. 222/98 — Non‑Earner Benefits — Are insurance‑based annuity payments non‑exempt income under the Regulations? — Passaro, 2010 ONSC 3322, applied — No evidence of pain and suffering award — Paragraph 43(1)4(i) not engaged — Payments treated as income for ODSP — Appeal dismissed | Pensions and social benefits — Budgetary requirements — Board and Lodge — Was the Appellant correctly assessed as paying room and board? — Rates table for a single person applied — Special boarder allowance included — Monthly budgetary requirements determined at $1,037.00 — No challenge to personal circumstances — Calculation confirmed — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — Tribunal powers — Financial requirements — Does the Tribunal have authority to vary statutory financial requirements? — Section 11 directs monthly calculation — No discretion to depart from legislative scheme — Compassionate circumstances acknowledged but not determinative — Legislative and regulatory framework complied with — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt668", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 668 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-25", "docket_number": "2508-05469", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5v3", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Statutory definition — Is the Appellant a “person with a disability” within ODSPA s. 4(1) at the time of the Director’s decision — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied to substantiality — Onus under ODSPA s. 23(10) met on balance of probabilities — Director’s decision wrong — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Health Status Report — Were impairments, duration, and restrictions verified by prescribed professionals under ODSPA s. 4(1)(c) — Physician and endocrinologist evidence accepted — Clinical notes and therapist letters provide continuity and context — Verification requirements satisfied — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Restrictions — Workplace functioning — Did substantial impairments result in substantial restriction in the workplace under ODSPA s. 4(1)(b) — Evidence of low energy, anxiety, freezing in interviews, inability to maintain schedule — IEWS severity aligned with testimony, ADLI not determinative — Gallier context principle considered — Substantial workplace restriction found — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairments may improve — Age, ongoing therapy, endocrinology care, and upcoming surgical consult considered — Decision maker not satisfied impairments are unlikely to improve — Review date set for two years — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt666", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 666 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-25", "docket_number": "2508-05464", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5v1", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) ODSPA criteria at the Director’s decision — Mental health impairments found substantial on totality of evidence — Substantial restriction in personal care established through ADLI and testimony — Gray and Crane applied — Review date set under O. Reg. 222/98 s. 5(1) — Appeal allowed | Procedure — Tribunal process — Late evidence — Should late medical reports be admitted where not adjudicated by the DAU? — Relevance to issues under appeal confirmed — Respondent had opportunity to review and respond — Principles of fairness and relevance applied — Late cardiology and clinic reports admitted | Procedure — Adjournments — Request to obtain counsel — Whether adjournment warranted to secure representation — No automatic right to presence of counsel under the Statutory Power and Procedures Act — Practice Direction on Adjournments and Rule 13 require exceptional circumstances — Counsel’s availability and retainer cancellation not exceptional — Adjournment denied" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt665", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 665 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-25", "docket_number": "2508-05462", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5v0", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability eligibility — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 (ODSPA) — Is the Appellant a person with a disability under s. 4(1)? — Verification of impairments and restrictions by prescribed professional — Direct and cumulative effect on personal care assessed — HSR, IEWS, ADLI and sworn testimony accepted — Onus under s. 23(10) met — Decision of Director rescinded — Appeal allowed | Statutory interpretation — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial” — Do verified impairments and restrictions meet the threshold of “substantial”? — Guidance applied from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Flexible, purposive reading tied to individual circumstances — Overlap between impairment and restriction evidence recognised — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions found — Person with a disability confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set? — Potential availability of further treatment considered — Decision maker not satisfied impairment is unlikely to improve — Review date fixed to reassess disability status — Income support to be paid if otherwise eligible — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt661", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 661 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-25", "docket_number": "2508-05411", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5tv", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Definition of person with a disability — Does the Appellant meet ODSPA s. 4(1)? — Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane applied to “substantial” impairment — Verified impairments continuous or recurrent for one year or more — Medical and testimonial record accepted — Director’s contrary determination set aside — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Do the impairments cause substantial restriction in workplace function under s. 4(1)(b)? — ADLI ratings severe and moderate accepted — Gallier considered on person‑centred assessment — Cumulative effects of pain, limited mobility and energy assessed — Capacity for physical and sedentary work unreasonable — Appeal granted | Evidence — Onus and proof — Statutory benefits appeal — Did the Appellant meet the onus under ODSPA s. 23(10)? — Family physician verification accepted under s. 4(1)(c) — Testimony found credible, consistent and persuasive — Medical records, imaging and specialist notes corroborative — Principled assessment of weight and reliability — Onus discharged | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for disability determination? — Impairment not permanent but substantial at decision date — Age and potential for future treatment considered — Review scheduled to reassess likely improvement — Review date set and income support ordered" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt658", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 658 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-25", "docket_number": "2508-05352", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5tq", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Whether decision to assess overpayment for April to November 2025 was correct — Unreported federal benefits for spouse turning 65 considered — Cohabitation ceased June 1 with single-benefit-unit payments thereafter — No explanation for June to November assessment — Assessment for April and May upheld only — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery and calculation — Was the calculation of the overpayment correct and should recovery be varied? — OAS and CPP amounts for April and May identified — Discretion to modify recovery applied under Surdivall v. Ontario, 2014 ONCA 240 — Innocent mistake and administrative error found — Overpayment reduced | Evidence — Onus and record — What evidentiary showing and onus apply under the Act? — Subsection 23(10) places onus on Appellants to show Director wrong — Director’s opaque decision making and missing source documents — Business records under the Evidence Act noted — Bare assertions insufficient to prove assessment — Director’s evidentiary record inadequate" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt651", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 651 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-25", "docket_number": "2507-05210", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5tg", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Definition of spouse — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, O. Reg. 222/98, s. 1(1) — Whether the Appellant and Y.D. met the definition of spouse — CRA reporting of common law status and spouse’s net earnings considered — Domestic contract from 2016 given limited weight — Spousal relationship found — Income support ineligibility confirmed — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — Income calculation — Budgetary requirements — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 38 — Whether the spouse’s income exceeded budgetary requirements — Treatment of monthly deposits from an unknown source — Prescribed income exemptions inapplicable — Non‑exempt deposits deducted at 100 percent — Net earnings assessed — ODSP income support ineligibility maintained — Director’s decision affirmed | Evidence — Burden of proof — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, s. 23(1) — Whether the Appellant discharged the onus to show the Director was wrong — Weight of CRA records versus MyBenefits message and domestic contract — Post‑decision documents afforded little weight — Testimony unreliable without corroboration — Director’s decision sustained — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt636", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 636 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-25", "docket_number": "2507-05170", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5tc", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” under s. 4(1) — Onus under s. 23(10) to show Director’s decision was wrong — Tribunal satisfied criteria met at time of decision — Director’s decision rescinded — Income support to be paid per s. 17 of O. Reg. 222/98 — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairments — Cumulative assessment — Meaning of “substantial” informed by Gray and Crane — Verified continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year or more — Imaging, medications, physiotherapy, assistive device, uncontrolled pain — Whole person context considered — Impairments found cumulatively substantial at the date of decision — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial restrictions — Workplace function — Whether impairments caused substantial restriction in activities of daily living — HSR and ADLI moderate entries persuasive — Gallier permits assessment in Appellant’s own situation — Difficulties with housekeeping, mobility, stairs, prolonged standing and sitting even with cane — Substantial restriction in the workplace established — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether impairment is not likely to improve — Tribunal not satisfied improvement unlikely — Sedentary employment and retraining then unreasonable — Review date set because impairments may improve to enable full-time work — Review date set two years from order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt628", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 628 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-25", "docket_number": "2504-02689", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5sn", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — ODSP Act, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant had a substantial physical impairment and substantial restrictions in personal care, community, or workplace at the date of the Director’s decision — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — HSR, ADLI ratings, and MRI considered — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction established — Appeal granted | Procedure — Extension of time — ODSP appeals — Late filing — ODSP Act, subs. 23(2) — Was there a basis to extend the 30‑day deadline in O. Reg. 222/98, s. 61(1)? — Intent to continue and reasonable grounds found — Bedridden explanation accepted — Apparent grounds for appeal identified — Extension granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairment may improve? — Age, ongoing treatment with family physician and neurologist, medication management, and future options considered — Not satisfied impairment is not likely to improve — Review date set for one year" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt700", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 700 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-24", "docket_number": "2508-05903", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5wl", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Appeal from Director’s decision — Whether Appellant is a “person with a disability” under s. 4(1) — Onus under s. 23(10) met — Medical verification and testimony accepted — Director’s determination rescinded — Income support payable under O. Reg. 222/98 s. 17 — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability definition — Substantial impairments — Whether impairments were substantial within s. 4(1)(a) — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Low back, Achilles enthesophytes, meralgia paresthetica, sleep apnea and obesity cumulatively substantial — Limited weight to minimally treated conditions — Findings based on imaging, medications and testimony — Substantial impairments found | Pensions and social benefits — Disability definition — Activities of daily living — Whether substantial restriction in workplace function under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier considered on person-specific context — ADLI ratings and use of cane support restriction — Pain, fatigue, mobility limits restrict realistic work — Substantial workplace restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Disability definition — Verification — Whether impairments, duration and restrictions were properly verified under s. 4(1)(c) — Family Physician’s Health Status Report and ADLI accepted — Continuous or recurrent conditions expected to last one year or more — Verified restrictions on mobility, concentration and fine motor tasks — Verification established | Pensions and social benefits — Reviews — Medical review date — Whether to set review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Age, chronicity and contextual circumstances considered — Severe sleep apnoea and longstanding musculoskeletal conditions unlikely to improve — Satisfied that impairment not likely to improve — No review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt696", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 696 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-24", "docket_number": "2508-05846", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5wd", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition, s. 4(1) — Is the Appellant a “person with a disability”? — Elective Mutism causing substantial impairment and substantial restriction — Activities of daily living and workplace functioning assessed — Gray, Crane and Gallier applied — Onus under ODSPA s. 23(10) discharged on balance of probabilities — Appeal granted, decision rescinded, income support ordered | Procedure — Tribunal hearing management — Fairness and accommodation — Was it fair to proceed with only the witness’s testimony? — Appellant declined to testify due to Elective Mutism — Prejudice to parties considered, disclosure provided, representation authorised — Alternate formats explored, limited utility — Hearing proceeded with witness only — Proceeding allowed | Evidence — Assessment of proof — Reliability and weight — What weight to give witness and medical evidence? — Witness credible and consistent with Health Status Report — Psychiatric narratives, IEWS and ADLI persuasive — Inconsistencies acknowledged but insufficient to undermine reliability — Balance of probabilities met for substantial impairment and restriction — Finding supported | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP review — Review date, O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set? — Appellant’s age and continued efforts at treatment considered — Impairments may improve to below substantial threshold — Post‑decision clinical notes inform ongoing nature — Review date fixed three years from Order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt695", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 695 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-24", "docket_number": "2508-05845", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5wc", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Definition of “person with a disability,” s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant met the substantial impairment and substantial restriction thresholds — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Medical evidence and credible testimony weighed cumulatively — Director’s onus provision noted, s. 23(10) — Appeal granted, person with a disability found | Evidence — Administrative tribunal — New medical evidence — Whether post-decision records relate to the Appellant’s condition at the date of decision — Omar and Jemiolo applied to s. 64(1) ODSPA — Revised IEWS referencing decision date considered — Consistency with earlier HSR assessed — Later MRI given lesser weight — New evidence considered but lesser weight ascribed | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Whether substantial restrictions in a workplace established under s. 4(1)(b) — Appellant’s testimony on pain, mobility, panic attacks and amotivation — ADLI severe and moderate limitations corroborating restrictions — Gallier contextual approach applied — Physical and sedentary employment unreasonable — Substantial restriction in workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — Review and reassessment — Review date — Whether a review date should be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Prospects of improvement with age and continued treatment — Pending psychiatric assessment noted — Decision maker not satisfied impairments unlikely to improve — Review date set for two years — Review date ordered" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt693", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 693 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-24", "docket_number": "2508-05841", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5w9", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets ODSPA s. 4(1) — Onus under s. 23(10) to show Director’s decision was wrong — HSR, IEWS, ADLI and credible testimony accepted — Director’s decision rescinded — Income support to be paid under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairments — ODSPA s. 4(1)(a) — Are Social Phobia, Major Depressive Disorder and substance use disorders substantial? — Gray and Crane applied to flexible, cumulative assessment — Psychologist’s HSR and IEWS severe and moderate ratings aligned with testimony — Absence of treatment not determinative — Substantial impairments found | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial restrictions — Workplace functioning — Do substantial impairments cause substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b)? — Gallier considered person in own situation — ADLI severe social interactions and moderate domains corroborated by testimony — Day-to-day coping not equivalent to workplace function — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairments may improve? — Appellant’s age and efforts at treatment noted — New medication initiated before hearing — Decision maker not satisfied impairment unlikely to improve — Review in three years set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt682", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 682 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-24", "docket_number": "2508-05732", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5vx", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Substantial impairment — Whether the Appellant established a substantial impairment under s. 4(1)(a) — Guidance from Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane applied — Psychological testing and IEWS findings persuasive — Cumulative impairments from learning disorder, depression, panic disorder and cannabis use disorder found substantial — Director’s contrary assessment rejected — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Substantial restriction — Whether impairments caused substantial restriction in the ability to function in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier considered on contextual assessment — ADLI ratings and testimony on anxiety, motivation and social interaction accepted — Capacity to engage in physical or sedentary employment unreasonable — Substantial workplace restriction found — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Verification — Whether impairments, duration and restrictions were verified by a prescribed professional under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report by psychologist with prescribed qualifications — Cognitive and psychometric testing corroborative — Evidence satisfied verification requirements despite limited treatment history — Director’s decision wrong under s. 23(10) — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP administration — Medical review — Whether to set a medical review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Willingness to pursue treatment and potential for improvement noted — No ongoing primary care but efforts to obtain physician underway — Review period appropriate given prospects for change — Review date set for one year" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt672", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 672 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-24", "docket_number": "2508-05587", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5vg", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether impairments and restrictions are substantial under s. 4(1) — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied, Gallier considered — Verified mental impairments and workplace restrictions found substantial at the time of the Director’s decision — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Evidence — Medical evidence — Health Status Report and functional scales — How should the Tribunal weigh the ADLI against IEWS and testimony? — ADLI read in context, narrative qualifications noted, episodic symptoms considered — Reduced weight where inconsistent with IEWS and testimony — Appellant credible though reliability on dates limited — Evidence accepted — Appeal granted | Procedure — Onus — Social Benefits Tribunal appeals — Whether the Appellant met the onus under s. 23(10) of the ODSPA to show the Director was wrong — Balance of probabilities met through HSR, IEWS and testimony — Three separate tests under s. 4(1) established — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — Ontario Disability Support Program — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Age and potential for improvement with consistent treatment considered — Tribunal satisfied a review date is appropriate — Review set for three years — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt650", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 650 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-24", "docket_number": "2507-05183", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5tf", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — Does the Appellant meet s. 4(1) requiring substantial impairment and substantial restriction in activities of daily living — Guidance applied from Gray and Crane — Gallier considered on individual context — Substantial mental health impairments found — Substantial restriction in personal care established — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Verification — Were the impairments, likely duration, and restrictions verified by a person with the prescribed qualifications under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report and Disability Determination Package accepted — General practitioner practising psychotherapy verified continuous or recurrent conditions — Medical evidence and testimony consistent — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA administration — Review date — Should a review date be set under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Decision maker may set review unless satisfied impairment not likely to improve — Age and further treatment options considered, including psychiatric care — Two-year review appropriate — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt649", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 649 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-24", "docket_number": "2507-05107", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5t7", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Does the Appellant meet s. 4(1) criteria? — Substantial physical or mental impairment continuous or recurrent — Substantial restriction in activities of daily living — Impairment and restrictions verified by a person with the prescribed qualifications — Medical evidence and testimony accepted — Director’s decision wrong — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Section 4(1) — How should “substantial” be interpreted in s. 4(1)(a)? — Flexible meaning related to individual circumstances and purposes of the Act — Three separate tests requiring separate analysis — Guidance applied from Gray, Crane, and Gallier — Interpretation applied | Pensions and social benefits — Review of disability status — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set? — Decision maker satisfied impairment may improve given age and continued treatments — Review date appropriate where impairment not likely permanent — Review date set for 2 years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt645", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 645 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-24", "docket_number": "2507-04993", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5t3", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of “person with a disability” (ODSPA, s. 4(1)) — Whether the Appellant meets the statutory criteria — Subsection 23(10) onus on Appellant — Verified impairments and duration established by prescribed professional — Director’s decision wrong — Tribunal satisfied Appellant is a person with a disability — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment — Interpretation of “substantial” under s. 4(1)(a) — Application of Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Whether Brain injury and Substance use disorder are substantial — Evidence from HSR, IEWS, psychological assessment, and testimony — Cumulative lens applied — Substantial impairments found | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial restriction — Activities of daily living — Workplace function under s. 4(1)(b) — Whether impairments resulted in substantial restriction in the workplace — Gallier considered, person assessed in own situation — ADLI severe and moderate ratings consistent with testimony — Onus in s. 23(10) discharged — Substantial restriction in workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether review date should be set — Decision maker satisfied impairments may improve — Appellant’s age and continued efforts at treatment considered — Two-year review date fixed — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt643", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 643 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-24", "docket_number": "2507-04916", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5t1", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Calculation of income support — OSAP non-educational funding treated as income — Application of Ontario Regulation 134/98, ss. 40(1), 48, 52 to 54 and s. 48(3) — Whether the overpayment assessment was correct — No evidence of error in calculation — Appeal granted in part | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Recovery — Discretion to restrict recovery — Administrative error by Ontario Works office A established — Whether the overpayment should be recovered — Factors in Surdivall v. Ontario considered — Appellant credible and relied on case manager’s information — Recovery restricted — Any amounts already recovered to be returned — Appeal granted in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt642", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 642 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-24", "docket_number": "2507-04910", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5t0", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Person with a disability — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant’s impairments were substantial and continuous or recurrent — Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane applied to “substantial” — IEWS severe ratings and psychiatric record support substantial impairment — Tribunal satisfied Appellant is a person with a disability — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1)(c) — Whether impairments, likely duration, and restrictions were verified by a nurse practitioner — Health Status Report and ADLI completed by prescribed professional — Conditions expected to last one year or more established — Verification sufficient | Pensions and social benefits — Burden of proof — Onus — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 23(10) — On whom lies the onus to show the Director’s decision was wrong — Standard applied on balance of probabilities — Medical evidence and testimony accepted over Director’s determination — Onus discharged | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Reassessment timeline — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set where impairment may improve — Age, continuing treatment, and ongoing assessments considered — Reasonable potential for improvement identified — Review date set two years from Order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt640", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 640 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-24", "docket_number": "2507-04652", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5sx", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Definition of disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant meets the definition of “person with a disability” — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Verified chronic sciatica and left knee osteoarthritis, tendinitis left shoulder — Whole person analysis applied — Decision of Director wrong — Person with a disability found — Appeal allowed | Procedure — Late appeal — ODSPA, subs. 23(2), O. Reg. 222/98, s. 61(1) — Whether to extend time to file appeal filed two weeks after deadline — Intent to continue and efforts to do so accepted — No prejudice to the Director — Reasonable grounds for extension and apparent grounds for appeal — Extension of time granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Substantial restriction — Do substantial impairments result in substantial restrictions in personal care, community, or workplace — Gallier considered, applicant assessed in own situation — Cane use, dependence for shower transfers, limited walking, seven moderate ADL restrictions — Limited education and language barriers weighed — Substantial restriction established | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanism — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date where impairments may improve — Continued efforts at treatment, specialist consultations, injections, physiotherapy noted — Decision maker not satisfied impairment is not likely to improve — Review date appropriate — Review set for two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt639", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 639 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-24", "docket_number": "2507-05131", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5t8", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Did the Appellant establish substantial impairments and substantial restrictions in activities of daily living — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane applied — Gallier context considered — Cumulative effect on workplace functioning accepted — Appeal granted | Procedure — Extension of time — Late appeal — ODSPA, s. 23(2) — Should time be extended where the appeal was filed after the 30‑day deadline — Intent to appeal and efforts to proceed established — Reasonable grounds for extension and apparent grounds for appeal found — Extension granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Medical evidence — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(c) — Were impairments, likely duration, and restrictions verified by a person with prescribed qualifications — Nurse practitioner HSR and supplemental clinic notes accepted — Imaging and specialist records corroborative — Verification requirements satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairments may improve with treatment — Desire to improve and ongoing treatment efforts noted — Determination that impairments may not be permanent — Review date set two years from order" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt637", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 637 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-24", "docket_number": "2507-05162", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5tb", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant had substantial impairments and substantial restrictions at the date of the Director’s decision — Gray and Crane applied to cumulative impairments and workplace functioning — Verified Depression and GAD found cumulatively substantial — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Appeal granted | Evidence — Administrative tribunals — New medical evidence — ODSPA, s. 64(1) — Whether post‑decision medical reports relate to the Appellant’s condition at the effective date of the Director’s decision — Omar and Jemiolo followed on temporal relevance and presumption — Reports explicitly tied to material time — New medical evidence considered | Pensions and social benefits — Review of eligibility — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set where impairments may improve — Youth and potential improvement considered — Determination that impairments may improve to permit return to work — Review date set one year from Order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt635", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 635 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-24", "docket_number": "2507-05174", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5td", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability under s. 4(1) — Substantial impairments and substantial restriction in workplace functioning found — Medical and testimonial evidence assessed cumulatively per Gray and Crane — Onus on Appellant under s. 23(10) met — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Procedure — Extension of time — Late appeal — Whether to grant an extension under s. 23(2) — Thirty‑day deadline under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 61(1) missed — Delay due to late receipt of internal review decision — No objection by Respondent — Reasonable grounds and apparent grounds for appeal established — Extension granted | Evidence — New evidence on appeal — Medical records — Whether new medical evidence relates to the condition at the Director’s decision date — Omar v. Ontario and Jemiolo applied — Presumption of report date addressed — Medical chart explicitly tied to relevant time — Verification of impairments, duration and restrictions accepted — New medical evidence considered | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — Whether a review date should be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Tribunal satisfied impairments may improve — Periodic reassessment appropriate — Review scheduled one year from Order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt634", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 634 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-24", "docket_number": "2505-03646", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5sv", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Definition of disability — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) criteria — Gray v. Director applied to “substantial” impairment — Crane confirms three-part analysis under s. 4(1) — Verified mental health impairments continuous or recurrent and lasting one year or more — Found to be a person with a disability — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Substantial restriction — Do substantial impairments result in substantial restriction in workplace functioning — Gallier permits assessment in Appellant’s own circumstances — Evidence of poor function at home and dependence on family — Intellectual and Emotional Wellness Scale and ADLI considered — Substantial workplace restriction established at the time of the Director’s decision — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP appeals — Burden of proof — Whether the Appellant satisfied s. 23(10) onus to show the Director was wrong — Medical verification by Family Physician and psychiatrist — Consistent testimony regarding refractory symptoms — Direct and cumulative effects established on balance of probabilities — Director’s decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP administration — Review date — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Evidence of recent improvement with medication — Potential for further treatment modalities — Decision maker satisfied impairment may improve — Review date set for two years — Income support payable if otherwise eligible under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt633", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 633 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-24", "docket_number": "2505-03367", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5st", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets ODSPA, s. 4(1) definition — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Flexible meaning of “substantial” assessed on totality of evidence — Mental health impairments continuous or recurrent and long term — Tribunal satisfied on balance of probabilities — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Medical evidence — Whether impairments, duration, and restrictions were verified by a prescribed professional under ODSPA, s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report and IEWS completed by family physicians — Treatment history and compliance considered — Onus under ODSPA, s. 23(10) met — Verification by qualified physicians accepted — Director’s decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Whether substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace under ODSPA, s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier considered, applicant assessed in her own situation — ADLI ratings and physician narratives support restriction — Credible testimony on anxiety, amotivation, poor concentration — Substantial restriction in workplace functioning established — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Review of eligibility — Review date — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Decision maker may set review where impairment may improve — Evidence of ongoing treatment and potential improvement — Review date fixed by Tribunal — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Review date set three years from Order" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt629", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 629 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-24", "docket_number": "2504-02742", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5sp", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of disability — Whether Appellant meets s. 4(1) ODSPA — Substantial physical or mental impairment established — Verification by prescribed professional accepted — Application of Gray and Crane to substantiality — Totality of medical evidence and credible testimony considered — Person with a disability status recognised — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Activities of daily living — Whether impairments cause substantial workplace restriction — ADLI severe and moderate ratings consistent with testimony — Direct and cumulative effects assessed in context of Appellant’s situation — Function in a workplace substantially restricted at decision date — Director’s determination set aside — Disability established — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — Whether to set review under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Consideration of age, potential future treatment and likelihood of improvement — Continuous monitoring of serious cardiac condition noted — Review appropriate rather than indefinite determination — Four-year review date set — Appeal allowed, review date ordered" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt622", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 622 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-24", "docket_number": "2501-00384", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5sg", "inferred_outcome": "Deferred", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A10", "reasons": [ "A10" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Overpayment and cancellation — Whether the Director correctly assessed, calculated and recovered an overpayment — Unreported self employment earnings required to determine financial eligibility — Work Related Benefit included — Tribunal finds nothing in the evidence to favour the Appellants — Director’s decisions to cancel income support and recover overpayment affirmed — Appeal denied | Procedure — Adjournment — Statutory Powers Procedure Act, s. 21 — Should the hearing be adjourned to another date? — Adequate notice of videoconference provided — Peremptory hearing ordered after prior adjournment — Conflict of interest and representation issues unresolved despite months — No request made before hearing — Natural justice not shown to require delay — Adjournment refused | Procedure — Dismissal for non-appearance — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 29(1)(b) — Whether the appeal shall be denied when the Appellants fail to attend without reasonable cause — Notice of Hearing not returned, attendance details correct — Reasonable to infer awareness — No evidence favouring the Appellants, Director v. Miller — Appeal denied" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt621", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 621 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-24", "docket_number": "2507-04934", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5sf", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether impairments and restrictions were “substantial” and continuous or recurrent — Three-part test from Crane applied — Whole person analysis of personal care, community and workplace functioning — Restrictions not substantial on balance of probabilities — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — Burden of proof — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Onus on Appellant to show Director’s decision was wrong — Whether evidence established substantial restrictions at time of Director’s decision — Tribunal entitled to consider applicant in own circumstances per Gallier — Failure to establish all elements under s. 4(1) — Decision affirmed | Evidence — Medical and functional evidence — Psychiatrist’s HSR, ADLI and IEWS — Weight of moderate and mild ratings assessed against testimony and daily functioning — Preference for evidence closest to decision date — Progress notes indicating clinically stable considered — Whether documentary ratings persuasive of substantiality — Medical opinion given limited weight — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt703", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 703 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-23", "docket_number": "2508-05912", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5zd", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability benefits — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” — Application of statutory definition to medical and testimonial record — Director’s determination reviewed on the totality of evidence — Appeal granted — Decision rescinded — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Person with a disability status confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Disability benefits — Substantial impairment — Whether impairments related to back pain, bilateral knee pain and depression were substantial — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Flexible, contextual assessment based on medical evidence and testimony — Substantial impairments found at the time of the Director’s decision — Person with a disability confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Disability benefits — Activities of daily living — Whether impairments resulted in substantial restriction in workplace functioning under s. 4(1)(b) — Evidence from ADLI, HSR and corroborative testimony considered cumulatively — Gallier principle applied to individual context — Substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace established — Person with a disability confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Disability benefits — Statutory definition — Whether the Appellant meets the definition under s. 4(1) of the Act — Verification by prescribed professional accepted for impairments, duration and restrictions — Direct and cumulative effects on personal care, community and workplace assessed — Requirements of clauses (a), (b) and (c) satisfied — Person with a disability determined | Pensions and social benefits — Disability benefits — Review date — Whether a review date should be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Impairments not likely to improve based on age, nature of conditions and persistent impairments despite medical intervention — Decision maker satisfied no improvement likely — No review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt701", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 701 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-23", "docket_number": "2508-05905", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5z9", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Definition of disability — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1)(a), (c) — Whether the Appellant had a substantial mental impairment verified by prescribed professionals — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Medical reports, treatment, and testimony assessed cumulatively — Substantiality found on totality of evidence — Person with a disability confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1)(b) — Do impairments cause substantial restriction in workplace or community functioning? — ADLI and IEWS ratings considered — Avoidant behaviours, poor concentration, panic, and sleep deficits accepted — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Substantial restriction established | Pensions and social benefits — Burden of proof — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 23(10) — Did the Appellant show the Director’s decision was wrong? — Tribunal weighed testimony and medical documentation — Specialist evidence given significant weight — Overlap of evidence for impairment and restriction recognised per Crane — Director’s decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Review of eligibility — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairments may improve? — Appellant actively engaged in treatment with medication adjustments and increased psychiatric follow up — Some improvement since decision noted — Review date set for one year | Pensions and social benefits — Income support — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Whether income support should be paid if otherwise eligible — Person with a disability determination made — Director’s decision set aside — Payment of income support ordered in accordance with regulation — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt692", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 692 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-23", "docket_number": "2508-05829", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5w8", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program Act — Definition of “person with a disability” — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) at the time of the Director’s decision — Onus under s. 23(10) — Gray and Crane considered on “substantial” — Verified impairments, duration, and restrictions assessed — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment — Respiratory and sleep apnea — Whether respiratory and sleep apnea impairments were cumulatively substantial under s. 4(1)(a) — Evidence of chronic cough, copious sputum, shortness of breath, poor rest — Specialist involvement and imaging noted — Gray and Crane applied — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial restriction — Workplace functioning — Whether impairments resulted in substantial restriction in the ability to function in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier applied to individual circumstances — IEWS and ADLI ratings considered cumulatively — Time needed to clear secretions limiting realistic work — Substantial workplace restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Medical evidence — Whether impairments and restrictions were verified by a person with the prescribed qualifications under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report, specialist referrals, otolaryngology and sleep clinic records — Family Physician completed IEWS and ADLI — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date where impairment may improve — New Family Physician, pending referrals and further modalities of treatment — Determination that impairment is likely to improve — Review date set two years from Order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt685", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 685 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-23", "docket_number": "2508-05750", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5w1", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) criteria — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction assessed using IEWS and ADL — Flexible meaning of “substantial” applied per Gray and Crane — Workplace functioning found substantially restricted — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Verification — Whether verification under s. 4(1)(c) was established by a prescribed professional — Family doctor’s HSR, IEWS and clinical records accepted — Verification limited to impairment, duration and resulting restriction per Sandiford — Mandatory professional verification affirmed per Cumming — Verification established | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Burden of proof and remedies — Whether onus under s. 23(10) was discharged — Appellant’s credible testimony consistent with medical evidence — Gallier confirms contextual assessment of restrictions — Review date set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) given treatment prospects — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted and medical review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt684", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 684 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-23", "docket_number": "2508-05748", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5w0", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Application of Gray and Crane to “substantial” — Medical and testimonial evidence assessed — Director’s determination reconsidered — Tribunal satisfied criteria met — Appeal granted and decision rescinded | Pensions and social benefits — Verification requirements — Prescribed professional — Were the impairments, likely duration, and restrictions verified under s. 4(1)(c)? — Health Status Report and supplemental medical chart considered — Physician with prescribed qualifications confirmed verification — Limited records explained by transfer — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment and restriction — Activities of daily living — Do PTSD, anxiety and sciatica cause substantial restriction in workplace function under s. 4(1)(b)? — IEWS and ADLI ratings examined — Gallier applied to personal context — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Found substantial impairment and restriction | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — Ontario Regulation 222/98 — Should a review date be set under s. 5(1)? — Possibility of improvement with treatment and adjustment noted — Tribunal not satisfied impairment unlikely to improve — Review period appropriate — Review date set for two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt676", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 676 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-23", "docket_number": "2508-05600", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5vn", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition, person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met ODSPA s. 4(1) requirements — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction assessed cumulatively — Activities of daily living analysis including workplace function — Director’s decision found wrong under subs. 23(10) — Appeal granted and disability status confirmed — Income support ordered | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Impairments not likely to improve given age and treatment history — Health Status Report indicating likely to get worse with time — No review of determination directed — Review date not set | Evidence — Disability determination — Medical records and testimony — Weight of Health Status Report, IEWS and ADLI — Preference for evidence proximate to Director’s decision date — Credible testimony consistent with clinical notes and physician narratives — Post and pre‑decision records considered for credibility — Substantial impairment and restriction established — Appeal allowed | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits legislation — ODSPA s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial” impairment and restriction — Application of Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Flexible, contextual approach considering whole person and functional domains — Workplace function, not day‑to‑day coping, is decisive — Appellant meets statutory definition — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt670", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 670 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-23", "docket_number": "2508-05499", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5v6", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of “person with a disability” — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Does the Appellant meet the criteria in s. 4(1)(a) to (c)? — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Verification by Family Doctor accepted — Medical evidence and testimony credited — Director’s determination overturned — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Burden of proof — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Whether the Appellant satisfied the onus to show the Director was wrong — Tribunal weighs HSR, IEWS, ADLI, and sworn testimony — Credibility findings in Appellant’s favour — Evidence establishes substantial impairment and restriction — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Whether substantial impairments resulted in substantial restrictions in the workplace — Gray and Gallier considered — ADHD and Generalized Anxiety causing lack of focus and avoidance — ADLI ratings persuasive — Day-to-day coping not determinative of workplace ability — Substantial restriction found — Disability status recognised | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairments may improve? — Appellant’s age and ongoing treatment efforts considered — Not satisfied impairments are unlikely to improve — Three-year review date fixed — Appeal allowed in part with review scheduled" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt652", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 652 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-23", "docket_number": "2507-05236", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5th", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) criteria applied — Do the Appellant’s impairments and restrictions satisfy s. 4(1)(a) to (c)? — Guidance from Gray and Crane considered — Medical verification accepted — Activities of daily living domains assessed — Person with a disability status recognized — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Substantial impairments and restrictions — Were Major Depressive Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder substantial at the decision date? — Cumulative mental impairments weighed against workplace functioning — IEWS severe and moderate ratings preferred over earlier report — Test from Gray applied to workplace restriction — Substantial restriction established — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP review — Review date — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Evidence of ongoing psychotherapy and medication considered — Potential for improvement noted — Decision maker not satisfied impairment unlikely to improve — Timed reassessment appropriate — Review date set | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus of proof — Who bears the burden under ODSPA s. 23(10) to show the Director’s decision was wrong? — Appellant’s credible testimony and medical evidence meet balance of probabilities — Director’s decision rescinded — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Onus on appellant confirmed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt648", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 648 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-23", "docket_number": "2507-05075", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5t6", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility under ODSPA s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” at the date of the Director’s decision — Meaning of “substantial impairment” and “substantial restriction” considered with Gray, Crane and Gallier — Activities of daily living and workplace function assessed — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — ODSPA s. 4(1)(c) — Were the impairments, likely duration and restrictions verified by persons with prescribed qualifications? — Health Status Report and supplemental nurse practitioner charts accepted — Consistency between testimony and Disability Determination Package — Onus under s. 23(10) satisfied — Person with a disability determination confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairments may improve with treatment? — Barriers to accessing medication and counselling acknowledged — Potential for improvement noted — Review date imposed two years from order — Appeal granted and review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt646", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 646 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-23", "docket_number": "2507-05041", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5t4", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of “person with a disability” — Did the Appellant meet s. 4(1) ODSPA at the date of the Director’s decision? — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction both required — Whole person analysis applied — Medical and testimonial evidence not persuasive — Not a person with a disability — Appeal denied | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits legislation — ODSPA s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial” and structure of three separate tests — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario considered — Flexible meaning tied to individual circumstances and statutory purpose — Overlap between paras. (a) and (b) evidence acknowledged — Director’s decision affirmed | Evidence — Social benefits — Medical evidence assessment — Weight of HSR, IEWS, ADLI, and post‑decision psychiatric materials — Relevance to date of Director’s decision stressed — Treatment history and Jemiolo v. ODSP considered — Echocardiogram showing no significant mitral regurgitation noted — Post‑decision evidence given little weight — Appeal dismissed | Procedure — Administrative tribunal — Onus and standard — ODSPA s. 23(10) places burden on Appellant — Whether the Appellant showed the Director’s decision was wrong on a balance of probabilities — Tribunal not satisfied on totality of evidence — No need to consider restrictions once substantial impairment not met — Decision of Director affirmed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt638", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 638 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-23", "docket_number": "2507-05154", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5t9", "inferred_outcome": "Deferred", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A10", "reasons": [ "A10" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Works — Eligibility — Was the Administrator entitled to terminate assistance for failure to provide information under the Ontario Works Act, 1997 and O Reg 134/98 s.14 — Request for business details, bank records and living arrangements reasonably required — Burden under s. 28(11) on Appellant — Rea v Simcoe applied — Administrator’s decision upheld | Procedure — Tribunal practice — Adjournments and accommodations — Should the appeal be stayed or adjourned despite conversion to a paper hearing and acceptance of late submissions? — Accommodation for mental health granted, no prejudice shown — Request to delay proceedings not justified — Appeal proceeded on the written record — Adjournment refused" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt623", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 623 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-23", "docket_number": "2502-00978R", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5sh", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial impairment under ODSPA s. 4(1)(a) — Whether anxiety and major depressive disorder were substantial — Flexible meaning of substantial applied per Gray — Separate tests and whole person approach per Crane — IEWS and ADL ratings, testimony and treatment context weighed — Impairments verified by physician and continuous or recurrent — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial restriction under ODSPA s. 4(1)(b) — Do the impairments substantially restrict ability to function in a workplace? — Applicant assessed in own situation per Gallier — Severe and moderate IEWS and ADL ratings, physician’s opinion and credible testimony — Ordinary attendance and performance expectations unmet — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Onus under ODSPA s. 23(10) — Did the Appellant satisfy the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong? — Totality of evidence considered, including verified impairments and restrictions — No adverse inference for treatment barriers considered with Jemiolo — Evidence consistent and credible — Appeal granted and Director’s decision rescinded — Onus discharged | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set and at what interval? — Not likely to improve test considered in light of age and transitional housing — Emerging community supports noted, potential for improvement — Longer review appropriate in circumstances — Review date set for five years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt547", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 547 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-23", "docket_number": "2507-04895", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk36f", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Definition of person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant met the cumulative tests in s. 4(1)(a) to (c) — Guidance from Gray and Crane on “substantial” — Verified mental health and cardiac impairments assessed cumulatively — Medical evidence and credible testimony accepted — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Whether verified impairments resulted in a substantial restriction in a workplace — Gallier considered on person‑specific assessment — ADLI and IEWS ratings weighed with testimony — Cumulative effect of mental health and SVT symptoms on organisation, endurance and behaviour — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Burden of proof — Onus under ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Physician‑verified impairments and contemporaneous cardiology reports — Consistent sworn testimony preferred — Evidentiary weight assessed on the totality of the record — Onus discharged | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanism — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date given likelihood of improvement — Age, desire to improve and ongoing treatment efforts considered — Determination that impairments may improve below substantial — Three‑year review date fixed — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt530", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 530 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-23", "docket_number": "2507-04520", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk360", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Social assistance — Ontario Works eligibility — Whether the Administrator properly deemed three dependent children ineligible for failure to provide information — Reliance on s. 7 and s. 14 of the Act and ss. 14, 17, 20, 22 of Ontario Regulation 134/98 — Evidence of physical custody and full-time residence accepted — Decision to deem dependants ineligible found incorrect — Appeal granted, decision rescinded | Procedure — Tribunal appeals — Onus — Subsection 28(11) of the Act — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Administrator’s decision was wrong — Sworn testimony, lawyer’s letter, school records and housing worker letter considered — Balance of probabilities met — Onus discharged, appeal granted | Procedure — Tribunal process — Post-hearing submissions — Whether the Tribunal should accept post-hearing submissions filed after the hearing — Administrator confirmed receipt and did not object — Fairness considerations and Case Management Ruling setting timelines — Additional materials accepted for consideration — Post-hearing submissions allowed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt529", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 529 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-23", "docket_number": "2504-02872", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk35s", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP overpayments — Discretion to recover — Whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to limit recovery — Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 applied — Balancing support for persons with a disability with accountability to taxpayers — Recovery limited to 25 percent — Appeal granted in part | Administrative law — Discretion — Administrative error — Whether administrative error by the Director contributed to the overpayment — Failure to conduct regular file reviews found to be lack of due diligence — Director’s obligation to review information necessary to determine ongoing eligibility considered — Greater responsibility apportioned to Director — Recovery reduced | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP overpayments — Hardship — Whether medical hardship justifies further limiting recovery — Psychiatric report acknowledged but gaps identified and insufficient evidence of medical hardship — No affidavit evidence filed and clinical notes not attached — Further limits on recovery beyond 75 percent reduction not warranted — Appeal granted in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt612", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 612 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-20", "docket_number": "2508-05892", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5wg", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Whether substantial impairments and substantial restrictions established — Guidance from Gray and Crane on “substantial” — Medical verification and cumulative effects assessed — Workplace functioning significantly limited — Director’s decision wrong under s. 23(10) — Appeal granted | Procedure — Evidence at hearing — Late medical evidence — O. Reg. 222/98, ss. 64, 65 — Should late medical evidence be accepted, refused, or adjourned? — Timeliness requirements not met — Potential prejudice to Respondent noted — Tribunal exercises discretion to exclude materials filed shortly before hearing — Late evidence refused | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date where impairment may improve — Recent imaging showing lesions and pending MS specialist referral considered — Possibility of treatment alternatives recognised — Longer review interval appropriate in circumstances — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt611", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 611 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-20", "docket_number": "2508-05643", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5vs", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — Whether the appellant met s. 4(1) definition at the time of the Director’s decision — Application of Gray v. Director of the ODSP and Crane — Decision of the Director wrong under s. 23(10) — Tribunal satisfied appellant is a person with a disability — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Substantial impairment — Whether impairments were substantial within s. 4(1)(a) — Flexible meaning of “substantial” applied to totality of evidence — Degenerative disc disease with chronic pain and limited range of motion — MRIs showing spinal canal stenosis and cord compression — Medical records and testimony persuasive — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Do impairments result in a substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier considered, applicant assessed in own situation — ADLI ratings and clinical notes consistent with severe physical limitations — Inability to perform manual labour roles established — Workplace function substantially restricted — Person with a disability determination confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Review of eligibility — Review date — Whether to set a review date under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Pending referrals to pain clinic and neurosurgeon noted — Possibility of improvement with new treatment avenues — Review date appropriate — Review set for two years — Order for income support if otherwise eligible maintained — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt609", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 609 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-20", "docket_number": "2508-05898", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5wk", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets ODSPA s. 4(1) — Onus under ODSPA s. 23(10) to show Director was wrong — Health Status Report and Disability Determination Package considered — Director’s decision rescinded — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial impairment — Whether impairments were “substantial” within s. 4(1)(a) — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Cumulative assessment of Anxiety or Depression, Chronic diffuse pain, Dental caries — Medical evidence and testimony accepted — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Activities of daily living — Whether impairments caused substantial restriction under s. 4(1)(b) — Workplace functioning as primary domain — Gallier considered on contextual assessment — IEWS and ADLI ratings supportive — Severe social interaction limits and reduced physical activity — Substantial restriction in workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Access barriers to specialist care and imaging noted — Potential for improvement with treatment — Review date set two years from Order — Determination confirmed with review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt561", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 561 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-20", "docket_number": "2507-05095", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk36w", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met the definition in s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Substantial impairment established on totality of evidence — Director’s decision wrong under s. 23(10) — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Were impairments, duration and restrictions verified under s. 4(1)(c)? — Health Status Report completed by physician with prescribed qualifications accepted — No qualified evidence verifying Financial Stress impairments — Unverified Financial Stress evidence disregarded — Verification requirements met for physical conditions — Financial Stress excluded | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Personal care — Do substantial impairments result in a substantial restriction in attending to personal care under s. 4(1)(b)? — Gray and Gallier considered — ADLI severe and moderate ratings weighed with testimony — Intentional pacing, need for rest, difficulty with stairs and bathing — Substantial restriction in personal care found | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Medical review date — Should a review date be set under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98? — Decision maker satisfied impairments may improve with age and continued treatment — Physiotherapy discontinued due to cost noted — Review date appropriate to reassess substantiality — Review set for two years from order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt552", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 552 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-20", "docket_number": "2507-05018", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk36l", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) at the date of decision — ADHD, Learning Disability, Depression and Anxiety verified — IEWS and ADLI ratings assessed — Activities of daily living considered — Director’s decision affirmed — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Is the Appellant a person with a disability under s. 4(1)? — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction thresholds both required — Whole person analysis applied to testimony and medical records — Cumulative assessment of impairments conducted — Thresholds not met — Appeal denied | Statutory interpretation — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial” — Whether “substantial” is met for impairment and restriction — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario considered — Flexible, contextual interpretation applied to individual circumstances — Three separate tests analysed — Substantiality not established — Decision of the Director affirmed | Evidence — Social benefits — Onus and standard — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Did the evidence show the Director was wrong? — Health Status Report, Psychiatrist’s follow-up reports, IEWS and ADLI weighed — Jemiolo referenced on treatment relevance — Testimony credible but insufficiently detailed — No adjustment in treatment proximate to decision — Onus not met — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt533", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 533 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-20", "docket_number": "2506-04247R", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk35w", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) definition — Guidance in Gray and Crane on “substantial” applied — Verification by person with prescribed qualifications via HSR and ADLI — Director’s finding of no substantial impairments and restrictions rejected — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairments and restrictions — Cumulative analysis — Were impairments from Epilepsy and Left Shoulder Pain or Recurrent Dislocations cumulatively substantial? — Substantial restriction in the workplace at the time of the Director’s decision — GP narratives, ADLI ratings, medications, neurologist follow ups, emergency room reports considered — Employment and retraining unreasonable — Person with a disability confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, subs. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date where impairment may improve — Appellant relatively young and seizure control improved after addition of new medication — Review date appropriate despite current determination — Income support if otherwise eligible — Review date set for two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt531", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 531 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-20", "docket_number": "2505-03577", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk35t", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant met the definition at the time of the Director’s decision — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Director, ODSP applied — Onus under s. 23(10) addressed — Director’s decision found wrong — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(c) — Whether impairments, likely duration, and restrictions were verified — Nurse Practitioner with prescribed qualifications completed HSR, Medical Conditions Chart and certificate — Verification accepted as continuous or recurrent and expected to last one year or more — Verification satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Personal care and workplace function — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(b) — Whether substantial restrictions existed — Evidence from IEWS and ADLI with severe and moderate ratings, consistent sworn testimony — Gallier considered on contextual assessment — Substantial restrictions in personal care and workplace function found — Income support payable | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date — Age, ongoing treatment, medication management and future referrals considered — Decision maker not satisfied impairment is not likely to improve — Review date set one year from the Order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt616", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 616 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-19", "docket_number": "2508-05287", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5tl", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets subsection 4(1) of the ODSPA — Meaning of substantial impairment and substantial restriction considered with Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Totality of evidence assessed, including HSR, IEWS and ADLI — Director’s decision found wrong — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Disability verification — Health Status Report — Were impairments, likely duration, and restrictions verified by a person with prescribed qualifications under s. 4(1)(c)? — Physician with long treatment history completed HSR and provided IEWS and ADLI ratings — Documentary record preferred for particulars over inconsistent testimony — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Do substantial impairments result in a substantial restriction in the ability to function in a workplace under subsection 4(1)(b)? — Evidence of chronic pain, anxiety and depression, mobility limits, assistive device use — ADLI ratings aligned with testimony — Substantial workplace restriction established | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — O. Reg. 222/98 — Should a review date be set under s. 5(1)? — Tribunal satisfied impairment may improve with treatment — Review date appropriate notwithstanding disability determination — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible under s. 17 of O. Reg. 222/98 — Review date set for two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt610", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 610 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-19", "docket_number": "2508-05603", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5vp", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility under ODSPA s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” within s. 4(1) at the time of the Director’s decision — Onus under s. 23(10) met on balance of probabilities — Verification via Health Status Report, ADL Index and supplemental medical information — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Substantial impairments under s. 4(1)(a) — Do the Appellant’s mental and physical impairments meet the threshold of “substantial” — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario considered — Specialist involvement, psychotherapy, hospital interventions and pharmacotherapy attempts indicative of substantial impairment — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Activities of daily living under s. 4(1)(b) — Do the direct and cumulative effects cause a substantial restriction in workplace functioning — Evidence of severe anxiety, ADHD, GI symptoms, and tics limiting sustained employment — IEWS and ADLI support substantial restriction — Function in a workplace substantially restricted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP administration — Review of disability status — Should a review date be set under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Age and possibility for further treatment and improvement considered — Determination that impairment may improve warrants review — Review date set two years from the Order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt607", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 607 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-19", "docket_number": "2508-05590", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5vk", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) definition — Substantial mental health impairments found — Substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace — Guidance applied from Gray and Crane on flexible substantiality — Tribunal satisfied on balance of probabilities — Person with a disability confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Whether impairments, duration, and restrictions were properly verified under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report completed by psychologist — Standardised assessments and IEWS, ADLI considered — Continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year or more accepted — Verification established | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus — Whether the Appellant satisfied s. 23(10) that the Director’s decision was wrong — Tribunal relied on medical evidence and persuasive testimony — Content and manner of testimony consistent with HSR — Decision of Director rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date for a determination of disability — Tribunal satisfied impairment may improve with treatment once accepted — Review appropriate given circumstances and potential improvement — Review date set for three years — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt597", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 597 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-19", "docket_number": "2508-05486", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk38d", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant was a person with a disability under s. 4(1) at the date of the Director’s decision — Definition applied with guidance from Gray and Crane — Onus under s. 23(10) satisfied — Decision of the Director rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Health care professional qualifications — Whether impairments and restrictions related to Persistent Depressive Disorder and OCD were properly verified under s. 4(1)(c) — Sandiford threshold on verification applied — Psychiatrist’s letter postdating decision considered with whole of the evidence — Verification of impairment, duration and restrictions accepted — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Whether impairments resulted in substantial restrictions in the ability to function in a workplace — ADL Index and IEWS ratings persuasive — Gallier contextual test applied — Inability to meet ordinary attendance and performance expectations found — Substantial restriction established — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanism — Review date — Whether a review date should be set under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Longstanding impairments and severity at date of decision considered — Specialist change noted, impairment not likely to improve promptly — Longer review cycle appropriate — Review date set for five years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt592", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 592 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-19", "docket_number": "2508-05465", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk387", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of disability — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability within s. 4(1) — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction analysed — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Workplace function, community function and personal care assessed — Cumulative effect of mental health conditions accepted — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Medical evidence — Were the impairments, likely duration and restrictions verified by a prescribed professional under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report and supplemental medical report reviewed — IEWS and ADLI considered with physician narratives — Verification at date of decision established — Impairments and restrictions verified | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set — Age and continued efforts at treatment offer hope of improvement — Ongoing counselling waitlist noted — Determination not permanent — Review set for two years — Review date set | Pensions and social benefits — Onus — Appeals to Tribunal — ODSPA, subs. 23(10) — Did the Appellant satisfy the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Totality of evidence weighed, credible sworn testimony aligned with medical records — Substantial impairment and restriction proven on balance of probabilities — Onus discharged — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt590", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 590 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-19", "docket_number": "2508-05443", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk385", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant met the definition of “person with a disability” at the time of the Director’s decision — Activities of daily living thresholds considered — Application assessed as of Director’s decision date — Tribunal not satisfied that criteria were met — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — Substantial impairment — Interpretation guided by Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Whether medical evidence proved substantial impairment under s. 4(1)(a) — Imaging described as mild, conservative treatment recommended, stable medication — Physician notes not supportive of substantiality — Director’s decision affirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Burden of proof — Onus — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 23(10) — Whether the Appellant established that the Director’s decision was wrong — Proof on balance of probabilities required — Evidence insufficient to establish substantial impairment or restriction — Onus not met — Appeal dismissed | Evidence — Admissibility and weight — Timing and reliability — Whether post-decision medical evidence and subjective reports establish substantiality at the relevant time — Preference for evidence proximate to Director’s decision — Limited weight to ADLI and revised IEWS based on third-party report — Appellant testimony unreliable on relevant period — Later mental health evidence not determinative — Director’s decision confirmed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt580", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 580 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-19", "docket_number": "2508-05294", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk37h", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Disability definition — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” under s. 4(1) — Onus under s. 23(10) ODSPA — Verification by prescribed professional satisfied — Director’s decision wrong — Evidence from HSR, IEWS, ADLI and testimony assessed — Appeal granted and person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Substantial impairment — Whether impairments were “substantial” within s. 4(1)(a) — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Graves disease and atrial fibrillation considered cumulatively — Specialist reports, medications, surgery and monitoring reviewed — Totality of evidence supports substantiality — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Whether impairments caused substantial restriction under s. 4(1)(b) — Fatigue, palpitations, shortness of breath and reduced concentration — ADLI severe and moderate ratings relied on — Capacity to perform prior work assessed — Substantial workplace restriction established — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Continuing eligibility — Review date — Whether to set review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Recent thyroidectomy with slow improvement considered — Decision maker not satisfied impairment unlikely to improve — Future reassessment appropriate — Review date set two years from order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt576", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 576 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-19", "docket_number": "2508-05282", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk37d", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) at the date of the Director’s decision — Application of Gray and Crane to substantial impairment and substantial restriction — Consideration of personal care, function in the community, and function in a workplace — Both substantiality thresholds not met — Appeal denied | Evidence — Medical evidence — Verification — Whether HSR, ADLI, IEWS and imaging established substantial impairment and restrictions on a balance of probabilities — Weight of physician ratings reduced in light of testimony — Treatment and pain management relevant per Jemiolo — Radiographs showed no evidence of hardware complication and ongoing healing — Verification insufficient to prove substantiality — Appeal dismissed | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus — Whether the Appellant satisfied s. 23(10) to show the Director’s decision was wrong — Burden to establish all three factors in s. 4(1) affirmed per Crane — Totality of the evidence assessed and not persuasive on a balance of probabilities — Decision of the Director affirmed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt568", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 568 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-19", "docket_number": "2507-05237", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk374", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP Act, s. 4(1) — Appeal — Whether the Director erred in finding the Appellant was not a person with a disability — Application of Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane to “substantial” — Medical and testimonial evidence weighed, including HSR, ADLI and IEWS — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Definition of disability — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Did the Appellant meet the definition at the time of the Director’s decision? — Continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year or more found — Totality of evidence approach applied — Person with a disability within s. 4(1) confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1)(c) — Were impairments, likely duration, and restrictions verified by a prescribed professional? — Health Status Report completed by family physician of 12 years — Diagnoses and functional limits documented — Verification requirement satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1)(b) — Did substantial impairments result in a substantial restriction in workplace functioning? — ADLI ratings and credible testimony accepted — Episodic impairments and bad days considered per Lloyd — Substantial workplace restriction established | Pensions and social benefits — Reviews — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set? — Evidence of some improvement with medication changes and current ability to work — Pending treatments noted — Decision maker satisfied review appropriate — Review date set for one year from the Order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt567", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 567 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-19", "docket_number": "2507-05222", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk373", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Disability definition — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) criteria as a person with a disability — Substantial impairments in Social Anxiety Disorder and ADHD found — Substantial restrictions in workplace and community established — Gray and Crane applied to meaning of substantial — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(c) — Were impairments, likely duration, and restrictions verified by a person with prescribed qualifications? — Health Status Report by family physician accepted — IEWS and ADLI consistent with physician narrative — Verification requirement satisfied — Verification accepted | Procedure — Onus — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Sworn testimony and medical documentation weighed — DAU treatment concerns considered with no adverse inference — Totality of evidence preferred — Onus discharged | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set given potential for improvement? — Young age, medication helping ADHD, family support enabling engagement with care — Possibility of improvement identified — Review date set for four years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt566", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 566 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-19", "docket_number": "2507-05221", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk372", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) criteria at the date of decision — Substantial mental impairments verified and continuous or recurrent — Substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace established — Activities of daily living evidence accepted — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Meaning of substantial — Interpretation of “substantial” impairment and restriction under s. 4(1) — Flexible, contextual approach affirmed — Authorities applied, Gray v. Director ODSP, Crane v. Director ODSP, Gallier — Overlap of evidence for paras. (a) and (b) recognised — Broader segment intended — Person with a disability found | Procedure — Administrative tribunal appeals — Onus of proof — Whether the Appellant discharged the onus under s. 23(10) of the Act — Totality of the evidence accepted including testimony, HSR, IEWS and ADL Index — Onus discharged on balance of probabilities — Director’s contrary decision set aside — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — Whether a review date should be set under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Consideration of age and continued efforts at treatment — Impairments not shown unlikely to improve — Review date appropriate — Two year review ordered — Income support to be paid if otherwise eligible" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt553", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 553 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-19", "docket_number": "2507-05027", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk36m", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions analysed — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario considered — Workplace functioning substantially restricted by chronic headaches and migraines — Cumulative effect on activities of daily living found — Decision of Director rescinded — Appeal granted | Procedure — Burden of proof — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Whether the Appellant satisfied the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong — Balance of probabilities applied to medical evidence and testimony — Tribunal entitled to consider the Appellant in her own situation — Onus discharged by verified impairments and restrictions — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set — Additional treatment since the Director’s decision and medication miscommunication noted — Decision maker not satisfied impairment is not likely to improve — Review date set for one year — Review ordered | Evidence — Medical verification — Verification by person with prescribed qualifications — Family physician DDP and specialist reports accepted — Testimony on symptoms weighed against clinical notes — Substantiality determined on totality of evidence, including activities of daily living indices — Medical impairments and likely duration properly verified — Findings of substantial impairments and restrictions confirmed — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt534", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 534 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-19", "docket_number": "2506-04436", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk35x", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions assessed at the time of the Director’s decision — Medical evidence, activities, and treatment efforts considered — Credibility and consistency of testimony evaluated — Director’s decision affirmed | Statutory interpretation — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Meaning of “substantial” — Interpretation of s. 4(1)(a) and (b) informed by Gray v. Director, ODSP and Ontario v. Crane — Separate tests and possible evidentiary overlap — Flexible meaning tied to individual circumstances and legislative purpose — Thresholds for substantial impairment and restriction not met — Appeal dismissed | Pensions and social benefits — Burden of proof — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 23(10) — Did the Appellant satisfy the Tribunal that the Director was wrong? — Contradictions between testimony and medical documentation noted — Limited treatment and unreliable IEWS and ADLI ratings weighed — Onus not discharged on a balance of probabilities — Appeal denied" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt524", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 524 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-19", "docket_number": "2504-02320", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk35m", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) definition applied — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability under s. 4(1) — Onus under ODSPA, s. 23(10) considered — Director’s determination assessed against statutory criteria — Appeal allowed and eligibility recognised — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial impairment — Mental impairments anchored in medical evidence — Were the Appellant’s impairments substantial at the time of the Director’s decision — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied to substantiality — IEWS scores and HSR narrative corroborating severe symptomology — Physician letter confirming severity and duration — Substantial impairments found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial restriction — Activities of daily living and workplace function — Did the impairments result in a substantial restriction in workplace functioning — Gallier endorsing contextual assessment — ADL Index ratings and testimony on poor hygiene and non attendance — Direct and cumulative effects established — Director’s decision found incorrect | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a medical review date be set under s. 5(1) — Likelihood of improvement with treatment addressed — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 payment direction noted — Continuing eligibility subject to review — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt615", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 615 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-18", "docket_number": "2508-05929", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5wp", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Definition of person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 at the time of the Director’s decision — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction thresholds — Medical and testimonial evidence assessed — ADLI ratings not suggestive of substantial restriction — Cumulative effects considered — Appeal denied | Evidence — Burden of proof — Onus — ODSPA, s. 23(10) places onus on Appellant — Did the Appellant satisfy the Tribunal that the Director’s decision was wrong? — Verified impairments and restrictions acknowledged but not substantial — Documentary evidence minimal and testimony not persuasive — Director’s decision affirmed | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits legislation — Meaning of “substantial” in s. 4(1)(a) — Application of Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Flexible meaning tied to individual circumstances and three separate tests — Overlap between impairment and restriction evidence addressed — Substantial thresholds not met — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt606", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 606 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-18", "docket_number": "2508-05581", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5vf", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Does the Appellant meet s. 4(1) ODSPA? — Onus on Appellant under s. 23(10) established on balance of probabilities — Director’s decision wrong — Definition applied to individual circumstances — Income support payable under O. Reg. 222/98 s. 17 — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification requirements — Prescribed professional — Were impairments, likely duration and restrictions verified under s. 4(1)(c)? — Health Status Report by physician accepted — Continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year established — Medical narratives and imaging considered — Verification sufficient — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment — Interpretation of substantial — Were impairments substantial under s. 4(1)(a)? — Gray and Crane applied — Pain conditions assessed cumulatively — Treatment efforts considered, Jemiolo referenced — Diabetes and sleep apnoea not determinative — Substantial impairment found — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Did impairments cause substantial restriction under s. 4(1)(b)? — Episodic low back pain and antalgic gait credited — ADLI mild ratings outweighed by physician narrative — Gallier context principle applied — Substantial restriction in workplace found — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanism — Review date — Should a review be set under O. Reg. 222/98 s. 5(1)? — Possibility of surgical intervention remains — Further specialist assessment anticipated — Decision maker not satisfied impairment unlikely to improve — Shorter review period imposed — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt605", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 605 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-18", "docket_number": "2508-05578", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5vd", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Definition of disability, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant had a substantial impairment and substantial restrictions at the date of decision — Medical verification by prescribed providers established — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied to substantiality — Workplace functioning substantially restricted by Opioid Use Disorder — Director’s decision found wrong — Appeal allowed and disability status recognised | Procedure — Appeals — Extension of time — ODSPA, s. 23(2) — Whether to extend time where appeal was filed after the 30‑day deadline — Intent to proceed and prompt efforts demonstrated — No objection by the Director — Reasonable grounds and apparent merit found — Extension of time granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Medical review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date where improvement is possible — Appellant’s age and ongoing treatment considered — Continuing follow‑up with addictions specialist — Impairments may improve below substantial level — Review date set for three years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt601", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 601 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-18", "docket_number": "2508-05509", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5v7", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Substantial impairment — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1)(a) — Whether chronic back pain, limited spinal mobility and sciatica were substantial — Gray v. Director, ODSP applied to flexible meaning of “substantial” — Medical findings of limited mobility without weakness or reflex loss — Substantial impairment not established — Appeal dismissed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Activities of daily living restrictions — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 4(1)(b) — Whether cumulative impairments caused substantial restriction in personal care, community or workplace — Crane v. Ontario considered on separate tests — Appellant independent in bathing and dressing, moderate limits noted — Second threshold not reached — Decision of Director affirmed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Evidence and onus — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, s. 23(10) — How treatment history and inconsistencies affect substantiality — Jemiolo v. Director, ODSP considered, treatment and activity not irrelevant — Over the counter medication with partial relief, no physiotherapy or specialist care — Onus not met — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Unverified impairments — Whether unverified mental health conditions could be considered — Physician’s post decision letter noted mental health impact — No verification under s. 4(1)(c), conditions excluded from analysis — s. 10(2) ODSPA and Omar v. Director permit new application with documentation — Decision of Director confirmed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt591", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 591 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-18", "docket_number": "2508-05452", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk386", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) ODSPA definition — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions assessed cumulatively — Mental Health Conditions and Physical Health Conditions considered — Director’s decision found wrong under s. 23(10) — Tribunal satisfied under subsection 4(1) — Appeal granted and person with a disability determined | Evidence — Medical evidence — Verification — Verification by prescribed professional under s. 4(1)(c) ODSPA — Health Status Report and supplemental medical chart relied upon — Imaging and bone density reports weighed for proximity and relevance — Appellant’s sworn testimony consistent with documentary record — Onus on Appellant under s. 23(10) met — Verification accepted | Statutory interpretation — Substantiality — Meaning of “substantial” in s. 4(1) — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Flexible, whole person approach to impairment and restrictions — Activities of daily living and workplace function analysed — Do the impairments result in substantial restriction? — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — ODSP review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) considered — Whether impairment not likely to improve — Treatments not yet maximised and recent antidepressant commencement noted — Shorter review date appropriate in circumstances — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt586", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 586 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-18", "docket_number": "2508-05429", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk381", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of disability — Section 4(1) criteria applied — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction thresholds considered — Direct and cumulative effect on personal care, community and workplace evaluated — Both thresholds required under Crane — Tribunal not satisfied on balance of probabilities — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus of proof — Section 23(10) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — On whom lies the onus and was it met — Appellant required to satisfy Tribunal that Director’s decision was wrong — Burden not discharged given totality and reliability of evidence — Decision of Director affirmed | Evidence — Medical evidence — Verification of impairments and restrictions — Weight of Health Status Report, ADLI and IEWS — Consistency with investigations and treatment examined — Self‑reported pain and mental health symptoms assessed — Lack of supportive and consistent documentation — Limited probative value of scales completed after single visit — Medical imaging and treatment history considered — Evidence insufficient | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits — Meaning of “substantial” in s. 4(1)(a) — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Flexible meaning tied to purposes of the Act — Three separate tests requiring separate answers — Overlap between paras. (a) and (b) evidence acknowledged — Application to individual circumstances — Substantial impairment not established — Appeal dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt583", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 583 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-18", "docket_number": "2508-05403", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk37v", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) ODSPA criteria — Verified impairments and duration established by family doctor — Severe anxiety and moderately severe depression found on GAD7 and PHQ9 — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Credible testimony and IEWS ratings accepted — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits legislation — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial impairment” and “substantial restriction” — Application of Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Flexible, contextual assessment of whole person — Consideration of personal care, community, workplace domains — Substantiality established on totality of evidence — Decision of Director rescinded | Procedure — Administrative tribunals — Onus of proof — Whether the Appellant satisfied s. 23(10) ODSPA — Standard requiring Appellant to show Director’s decision was wrong — Tribunal assesses medical evidence and testimony — No negative inference from limited treatment access — Burden met on balance of probabilities — Appeal allowed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP administration — Review date — Whether a review date should be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Consideration of likelihood of improvement — Young age and pending psychiatric assessment noted — Review date set for two years — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt582", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 582 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-18", "docket_number": "2508-05348", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk37k", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met the definition in s. 4(1) — Verification of impairments, duration and restrictions by prescribed professional — Evidence from HSR, ADLI and imaging considered — Director’s decision set aside — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Procedure — Appeals — Extension of time — Late ODSP appeal under subs. 23(2) — Whether reasonable grounds for applying for an extension and apparent grounds for an appeal — Intention to continue and efforts to proceed accepted — Thirty day deadline under O. Reg. 222/98 s. 61(1) addressed — Extension of time granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(a) — Whether impairments were substantial at the date of decision — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Chronic lumbosacral radiculopathy, MRI L5-S1, neurosurgeon referral, medications — Testimony consistent with medical records — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial restriction — Workplace function — Whether impairments resulted in substantial restriction under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier context-specific assessment applied — ADLI moderate and severe ratings, inability to work due to pain, cane use — Education and physical work history considered — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — ODSPA regulation — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98 s. 5(1) — Age and continued treatment including spinal surgery considered — Possibility of improvement noted by decision maker — Review date set two years from order date — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt573", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 573 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-18", "docket_number": "2507-05258", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk379", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Definition of “person with a disability” — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) criteria — Interpretation of “substantial” informed by Gray and Crane — Continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year or more — Substantial restriction in workplace functioning established — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification requirements — Health Status Report — Were impairments, duration and restrictions verified by a prescribed professional under s. 4(1)(c)? — Nurse practitioner with prescribed qualifications confirmed impairments and likely duration — IEWS and ADLI incorporated in HSR — Director’s contrary determination set aside — Person with a disability found | Evidence — Weighing of evidence — Medical records and testimony — Did the evidence establish substantial restrictions at the time of the Director’s decision? — Greater weight to documentary evidence over less reliable memory-based testimony — Jemiolo on treatment relevance considered — 2013 psychiatric consultation given little weight due to remoteness — Substantial restriction proven | Pensions and social benefits — Review mechanisms — Review date — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Part-time employment and ongoing treatment considered — Potential for improvement noted — Review date ordered one year from the Order — Appeal allowed with review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt572", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 572 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-18", "docket_number": "2507-05256", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk378", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Verification by prescribed practitioner established — Continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year or more — Director’s decision wrong under s. 23(10) — Decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Procedure — Appeals — Extension of time — Appeal filed one day late under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 61(2) — Whether the Tribunal should extend time under ODSP Act, s. 23(2) — Oversight by representative accepted — No objection by Director’s Representative — Filed within one year — Extension of time granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Substantial impairment and restriction — Meaning of “substantial” under s. 4(1) — Application of Gray v. Director of ODSP and Crane — Whole-person assessment and cumulative effects considered, IEWS and ADLI reviewed — Workplace functioning substantially restricted at time of decision — Director’s decision rescinded — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Review date — Whether a review date should be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Young Appellant and significant improvement with new medication and psychotherapy — Likely improvement considered — Review date set for one year" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt569", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 569 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-18", "docket_number": "2507-05242", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk375", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility — Definition of person with a disability — Whether Appellant met s. 4(1) thresholds at date of the Director’s decision — Medical and testimonial evidence assessed, HSR and ADLI considered — Cancer‑related fatigue found substantial, anxiety and valve‑related impairments not substantial — Substantial restriction in workplace function established — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — Disability definition — Meaning of substantial — Gray v. Director ODSP, 2002 CanLII 7805, flexible approach applied — Ontario v. Crane, 2006 CanLII 38348, three separate tests recognised and overlap addressed — Gallier, contextual assessment of restrictions endorsed — Whether substantiality assessed in individual context — Interpretation applied to find disability — Appeal granted | Evidence — Verification — ODSP Act, s. 4(1)(c) — Whether unverified impairments can be considered — Health Status Report and Verification Chart assessed — Mohamed, 2011 ONSC 4224, and Cumming and Cherryholme considered on “no or virtually no” medical evidence — Left arm numbness excluded for lack of verification — Verified cancer‑related fatigue accepted — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date after post‑decision treatment — Evidence of radiofrequency ablation and resolution of fatigue considered — Satisfaction that impairment likely to improve following surgery — One‑year review date fixed — Income support ordered if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted and review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt564", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 564 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-18", "docket_number": "2507-05123", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk370", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether impairments and restrictions meet “substantial” thresholds — Gray v. Director applied, Crane considered — Verified continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last — Direct and cumulative effect established — Appellant is a person with a disability — Appeal granted | Procedure — Social benefits appeals — Proceeding in absence — ODSPA, s. 29(1)(b) — Whether reasonable cause for non-attendance shown — Tribunal guided by Director, ODSP v. Miller — Proceeding on merits in appellant’s absence within jurisdiction — Record supported continuing with hearing — Hearing proceeded in absence | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Substantial restriction — Whether substantial restrictions in community and workplace functioning established — Gallier considered on person-specific assessment — ADLI and witness evidence consistent with moderate and severe limitations — Sedentary employment and retraining not reasonable — Substantial restriction found — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Review of disability status — Medical review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set review date given likelihood of improvement — Appellant’s age and ongoing efforts toward treatment noted — Review appropriate to reassess impairments and restrictions — Review date set three years from order" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt556", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 556 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-18", "docket_number": "2507-05057", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk36q", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Substantial impairment — Whether the appellant met the substantial impairment threshold under s. 4(1)(a) — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario considered — Mental health conditions found continuous or recurrent and expected to last one year or more — Appellant’s testimony and medical records preferred — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Substantial restriction — Whether impairments caused substantial restriction in workplace or community under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier applied to assess restrictions in appellant’s own situation — IEWS ratings and sworn testimony outweigh ADLI — Sedentary employment and retraining not reasonable — Substantial restriction established — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Verification — Whether impairments, duration and restrictions verified under s. 4(1)(c) — Nurse Practitioner’s Health Status Report confirms duration and functional limitations — Psychiatric consultation consistent with hypervigilance, anxiety, concentration and executive function deficits — Verification by prescribed professional accepted — Eligibility confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA administration — Review date — Whether to set a review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Age and ongoing treatment support possibility of improvement — Determination that impairments may change over time — Review date fixed — Review scheduled for one year from the order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt550", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 550 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-18", "docket_number": "2507-05006", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk36j", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability benefits — Definition of person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 at the time of the Director’s decision — Substantial physical or mental impairment required — Direct and cumulative effect on activities of daily living — Verification by a person with prescribed qualifications — Not satisfied — Appeal denied | Pensions and social benefits — Appeals — Onus — s. 23(10) places onus on Appellant to satisfy the Tribunal that the Director was wrong — Did the Appellant establish all three factors under s. 4(1)? — Separate tests per Ontario v. Crane applied — Totality of evidence assessed — Onus not met — Decision affirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Evidence — Treatment and verification — Role of treatment efforts in assessing substantial impairment per Jemiolo — Limited interventions and referrals at material time — Health Status Report and ADLI ratings considered — Post‑decision physician letter given little assistance for material time — Substantial impairment not demonstrated — Appeal dismissed | Pensions and social benefits — Statutory tests — Sequential analysis — Must both substantial impairment and substantial restriction be met under s. 4(1) — If impairment not substantial, no need to consider restrictions — Approach consistent with Crane — Tribunal declined to proceed to restrictions — Director’s decision upheld" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt532", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 532 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-18", "docket_number": "2506-04031", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk35v", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Guidance from Gray and Crane on “substantial” and three separate tests — Medical evidence and credible testimony accepted — Impairments assessed cumulatively — Tribunal satisfied Appellant is a person with a disability — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Verification of impairments — Can unverified impairments and restrictions be considered under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report by physician with prescribed qualifications accepted — No prescribed-qualifications evidence for certain conditions — Evidence regarding unverified conditions disregarded — Verification requirements under the Act not met — Unverified impairments disregarded | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Activities of daily living — Did impairments cause substantial restriction in personal care under s. 4(1)(b) — Mobility limits, cane use, difficulty standing, sitting, stair climbing — Infrequent bathing and tooth brushing, housekeeping and childcare assistance required — ADLI moderate and severe ratings given significant weight — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — Should a review date be set under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Appellant’s age, potential access to treatment, referral to pain institute — Increased treatment interventions may improve impairments — Review period appropriate in the circumstances — Review date set for three years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt527", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 527 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-18", "docket_number": "2504-02520", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk35q", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Verification by prescribed qualifications — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(c) — Whether impairments and restrictions were verified by a person with the prescribed qualifications — Evidence regarding Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder lacking verification — Health Status Report and physician’s supplemental reports accepted — Unverified condition disregarded — Evidence from treating physician preferred — Evidence regarding Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder disregarded | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial impairment — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(a) — Did the Appellant have substantial impairments at the relevant time? — Gray v. Director and Crane considered — Intellectual and Emotional Wellness Scale showing moderate and severe symptoms — Family physician’s longitudinal evidence credited — Major Depression and Anxiety assessed cumulatively — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Substantial restriction — ODSPA, s. 4(1)(b) — Whether impairments caused substantial restriction in personal care — Director v. Gallier applied to assess restrictions in personal context — Activities of Daily Living Index recording severe and moderate restrictions — Testimony on bathing, grooming, housekeeping accepted — Personal care substantially restricted — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairment may improve? — Decision maker satisfied impairment not permanent — Age and treatment compliance considered — Hope of improvement to below substantial level — Review scheduled two years from order — Review date set | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Eligibility determination — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability — Onus on Appellant under s. 23(10) — Medical and testimonial evidence weighed on totality — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction established — Director’s determination wrong — Appeal granted and decision rescinded — Income support ordered under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt523", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 523 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-18", "docket_number": "2503-01776R", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk35l", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of “person with a disability” — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) criteria — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Director, ODSP — Director’s onus framework under s. 23(10) applied — Verified impairments and restrictions accepted — Director’s decision found wrong — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairment and restriction — Workplace function — Whether impairments cumulatively substantial and result in substantial restriction in a workplace — Gallier considered on assessing restrictions in the Appellant’s own situation — IEWS and ADLI severe and moderate ratings persuasive — Consistent and reliable testimony credited — Appellant found to be a person with a disability | Pensions and social benefits — Treatment considerations — Absence of treatment — Whether lack of pharmacotherapy or psychiatric treatment prevents a finding of substantiality — Jemiolo considered on not drawing negative inference from absence of treatment in mental health — Long standing anxiety and mistrust contextualised — Substantial impairment and restriction established — Substantiality confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Review date — Whether to set a review date under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Prognosis “likely to remain same” and impairments “not likely to improve” — Age and persistent anxiety, paranoia, and mistrust considered — Review date inappropriate on the evidence — Review date not set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt519", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 519 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-18", "docket_number": "2507-04794", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk365", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Assessment and calculation — ODSPA, subs. 14(1), 5(1)(c) — Whether the Director correctly assessed overpayment due to undeclared employment income — CRA interface discrepancies reviewed and meeting with local office — Appellant provided no corroborating records to alter computation — Calculation based on information on file accepted — Overpayment assessment upheld | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Recovery discretion and hardship — Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 — Should the Tribunal order no recovery due to financial hardship — Monthly income only slightly exceeds expenses excluding arrears — Existing repayments toward prior overpayment considered — Accountability to taxpayer balanced with path to self‑sufficiency — No recovery ordered — Appeal granted in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt614", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 614 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-17", "docket_number": "2508-05918", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5wn", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of disability — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” under s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Application of Gray and Crane to “substantial” impairment — Continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year or more — Tribunal satisfied onus met under s. 23(10) — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification requirements — Medical evidence — Whether impairments, likely duration and restrictions were verified by a person with the prescribed qualifications under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report and psychiatric consultation accepted — Disability Determination Package and supplemental records consistent — Verification by physician established — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace functioning — Whether substantial impairments result in a substantial restriction in the ability to function in a workplace — ADLI and IEWS with many Moderate ratings — Pain, cognitive and mental health limitations credited — Individualised assessment per Gallier — Substantial restriction found — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Medical review — O. Reg. 222/98 — Whether to set a review date under s. 5(1) — Decision maker may set review date unless satisfied impairment not likely to improve — Ongoing treatment efforts offer hope of improvement — Review date set for two years — Appeal granted" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt604", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 604 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-17", "docket_number": "2508-05577", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk5vc", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) at the date of the Director’s decision — Onus under ODSPA s. 23(10) to show Director wrong — Verification by prescribed professional accepted — Decision of Director rescinded — Income support payable if otherwise eligible — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA s. 4(1)(a) — Substantial impairment — Were the Appellant’s mental health impairments substantial and long-term? — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario considered — Cumulative assessment of MDD and GAD symptoms accepted — Low treatment level not determinative given anxiety — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA s. 4(1)(b) — Activities of daily living — Did the impairments cause a substantial restriction in workplace functioning? — ADLI severe rating in social interactions — Consistent testimony of inability to work and prolonged unemployment — Individualised assessment per Gallier applied — Substantial restriction in workplace functioning established | Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA regulation — Review date — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Age and anticipated treatment support potential improvement — Current waitlist for therapy noted — Determination that impairments may improve — Review date set for two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt599", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 599 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-17", "docket_number": "2508-05554", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk38k", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — ODSPA disability definition (s. 4(1)) — Whether the appellant is a person with a disability at the date of the Director’s decision — Cumulative effect on activities of daily living assessed, workplace function substantially restricted — Chronic neck pain impairments found substantial — Onus under s. 23(10) discharged — Appeal granted | Statutory interpretation — ODSPA s. 4(1) — Meaning of “substantial impairment” and “substantial restriction” — Flexible, liberal interpretation consistent with the purposes of the Act applied — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane followed — Whole person approach and overlap between paras. (a) and (b) considered — Disability determination affirmed | Evidence — Medical verification — ODSPA s. 4(1)(c) — Whether impairments and restrictions were verified by a person with prescribed qualifications — Health Status Report, ADLI and supplemental physician report evaluated, arguable basis for verification per Sandiford — Imaging and specialist referrals corroborated — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a review date for the disability determination — Age and continued efforts at treatment considered, pending surgical consultation noted — Potential for improvement below substantial threshold acknowledged — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt595", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 595 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-17", "docket_number": "2508-05475", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk38b", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Disability determination — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Is the Appellant a “person with a disability” at the date of the Director’s decision — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions assessed cumulatively — Guidance applied from Gray and Crane, functional context from Gallier — Verified mental health conditions, IEWS and ADLI ratings considered — Onus under s. 23(10) discharged — Appeal granted | Procedure — Tribunal procedure — Late medical evidence — Should late medical evidence be admitted under O. Reg. 222/98, ss. 64 and 65 — New evidence relating to the relevant period filed outside the 30‑day limit — No prejudice to the Director and relevance established — Tribunal exercised discretion to accept materials — Evidence admitted | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for a disability determination — Consideration of likelihood of improvement given age and ongoing treatment efforts — Proximity of specialist referral noted — Monitoring of impairment trajectory warranted — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt594", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 594 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-17", "docket_number": "2508-05473", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk389", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program Act — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant met s. 4(1) at the Director’s decision date — Gray v. Director applied to give “substantial” a flexible meaning — Crane considered on separate tests and cumulative assessment — Testimony and medical evidence accepted — Decision of the Director rescinded — Appeal granted | Evidence — Social benefits appeals — Verification — Whether s. 4(1)(c) verification and s. 23(10) onus were met — Flexible approach to verification endorsed in Gray — Arguable basis threshold from Sandiford — Post‑decision physician report confirming status on decision date accepted — Totality of evidence reviewed — Verification of impairments, duration and restrictions established — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program Act — Substantial restrictions — Whether substantial impairments caused a substantial restriction in workplace functioning under s. 4(1)(b) — Gallier supports assessing the person’s own circumstances — ADLI severe limitations and consistent testimony — Physician confirmed inability to perform gainful work — Sedentary or work‑from‑home also restricted — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program Act — Review date — Whether a review date should be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Appellant’s age and continued efforts at treatment considered — Counselling initiated and psychiatrist referral pending — Impairments may improve to below substantial — Review set two years from order — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt593", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 593 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-17", "docket_number": "2508-05471", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk388", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability under s. 4(1) — Onus under subs. 23(10) to satisfy the Tribunal that the decision of the Director was wrong — HSR, IEWS, ADLI and testimony assessed on a balance of probabilities — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Definition — Subsection 4(1) criteria — Did the Appellant meet the definition of person with a disability? — Guidance from Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied to substantiality — Continuous or recurrent impairments expected to last one year or more established — Person with a disability within the meaning of subs. 4(1) found | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Subsection 4(1)(c) — Were impairments, likely duration and restrictions verified by a person with the prescribed qualifications? — Health Status Report by physician accepted as reliable — Unverified impairments, such as pain, given no weight — Verification requirements satisfied | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Whether substantial restriction in the workplace established under subs. 4(1)(b) — Contextual approach from Director, ODSP v. Gallier considered — ADLI severe and moderate ratings and testimony support restriction despite part‑time work — Substantial restriction in the workplace found | Pensions and social benefits — Review — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set for a determination that a person is a person with a disability? — Person’s impairment not likely to improve standard addressed — Age and continued efforts at treatment support setting review — Review date set two years from the Order date" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt574", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 574 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-17", "docket_number": "2507-05272", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk37b", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA s. 4(1) — Is the Appellant a person with a disability within s. 4(1)? — Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Substantiality assessed on totality of evidence, including testimony and medical records — Impairments related to major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety, panic attacks and agoraphobia found substantial — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Were impairments, duration and restrictions verified by a person with prescribed qualifications under s. 4(1)(c)? — Family physician documentation accepted in part — IEWS and ADLI given limited weight due to completion issues — Non‑reliance on diabetes, frozen shoulder and asthma recorded — Verified impairments established as continuous or recurrent — Verification accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Do substantial impairments result in a substantial restriction in ability to function in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b)? — Gallier considered on individual context — Positive work history but unpredictable panic attacks, poor sleep and limited driving — Restrictions incompatible with employment on balance of probabilities — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Should a review date be set under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1)? — Whether impairment is not likely to improve assessed — Age, transferable skills, medication changes, counselling and non‑urgent psychiatry referral noted — Limited medical detail constrains projection — Short review period appropriate — Review date set for one year" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt562", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 562 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-17", "docket_number": "2507-05097", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk36x", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Person with a disability — ODSPA, s. 4(1) criteria applied at date of decision — Whether impairments and restrictions were substantial and verified — HSR confirmed narcolepsy and limited restrictions — ADLI showed only mild limitations — Whole person analysis conducted — Director’s decision under ODSPA maintained — Appeal denied | Procedure — Tribunals — Burden of proof — ODSPA, s. 23(10) — Onus on Appellant to show Director was wrong — Whether balance of probabilities met with testimonial and medical record — Contradictions and limited contemporaneous documentation — Failure to discharge burden — Decision of Director affirmed | Statutory interpretation — Social benefits legislation — Meaning of “substantial” — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Application of Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane — Flexible, contextual assessment of substantial impairment and restriction — Three separate tests requiring separate answers — Overlap permissible but all elements must be proven — Tests not met — Appeal dismissed | Evidence — Medical evidence in benefits appeals — HSR, IEWS and ADLI — Weight of IEWS severe ratings versus mild ADLI findings — Historic neurology reports afforded little weight for relevant time — Treatment level a relevant factor per Jemiolo v. ODSP — Testimony partly inconsistent with documentary record — Evidentiary record not persuasive — Appeal denied" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt541", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 541 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-17", "docket_number": "2507-04797", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk366", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 90, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A5", "reasons": [ "A5" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Procedure — Extension of time — Should an extension of time to appeal be granted under subs. 23(2) — Apparent grounds for an appeal and reasonable grounds for applying for an extension found — Communication issues explained and late filing accepted — Tribunal satisfied it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 23(10) — Extension of time granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP disability — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability under s. 4(1) — Substantial impairment and substantial restriction analysed with Gray and Crane — IEWS and ADLI considered with psychiatrist verification and continuous or recurrent duration — Workplace functioning substantially restricted, Gallier applied — Director’s decision rescinded — Person with a disability found | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — Whether a review date should be set under s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 222/98 — Optimum outcome from treatment not yet achieved and likely improvement considered — Review scheduled for two years with income support otherwise payable under s. 17 — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt540", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 540 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-17", "docket_number": "2507-04886", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk36d", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A6", "reasons": [ "A6" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Eligibility — Assets in excess — Whether the decision to terminate Ontario Works income support due to assets in excess was correct — Ontario Works Act, 1997, s. 7(3)(b), O. Reg. 134/98, s. 38(1)(a) — Administrative error acknowledged but no overpayment — File closure effective January 31, 2025 — Decision of February 3, 2025 affirmed — Appeal denied | Statutory interpretation — Asset exemptions — RRSP — Are funds held in an RRSP exempt under O. Reg. 134/98, s. 39? — Exempt asset list examined and applied — RRSP not specified as exempt — Reclassification as nonexempt asset — Assets exceeded prescribed limits for a single person — Termination of income support valid — Appeal dismissed | Statutory interpretation — Duties of Administrator — Assistance to reduce assets — Does the Act require the Administrator to assist an appellant to rearrange assets to meet eligibility? — No legislative support for such obligation — Means tested social assistance program of last resort — Administrative error did not preserve eligibility — File closure upheld — Appeal denied | Procedure — Scope of appeal — Post-decision payments — Whether alleged unpaid months after February 3, 2025 fall within the issue under appeal — Onus on appellant under Ontario Works Act, 1997, s. 28(11) — No evidence of entitlement for February 2025 — Consideration of later payments deferred for separate appeal — Appeal on termination dismissed" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt535", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 535 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-17", "docket_number": "2506-04502", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk35z", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant meets s. 4(1) of the Act — Interpretation of “substantial” guided by Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane v. Ontario — Medical and testimonial evidence weighed holistically — Continuous or recurrent mental impairment established — Tribunal satisfied Appellant is a person with a disability — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Verification — Whether impairments, duration and restrictions verified by prescribed professional under s. 4(1)(c) — Health Status Report completed by longtime family doctor — Prescribed qualifications accepted — Intellectual and Emotional Wellness Scale ratings consistent with testimony — No negative inference from treatment choices — Verification requirements met — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP eligibility — Activities of daily living — Whether substantial impairments result in substantial restriction in functioning in a workplace under s. 4(1)(b) — Contextual assessment per Director ODSP v. Gallier — Severe anxiety and depression limiting leaving home and phone use — IEWS and ADLI showing severe limitations — Substantial workplace restriction found — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — ODSP administration — Review date — Whether to set review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Decision maker may set review date unless impairment not likely to improve — Recent bipolar diagnosis and medication adjustments considered — Appropriate to review eligibility — Review date set and decision rescinded" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt512", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 512 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-12", "docket_number": "2508-05582", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk38l", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of “person with a disability” — ODSPA, s. 4(1) — Whether the Appellant is a person with a disability — Direct and cumulative effect on activities of daily living — Verification by prescribed professionals — Onus under s. 23(10) to show Director was wrong — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Substantial impairments and restrictions — Interpretation of “substantial” — Gray v. Director ODSP and Crane v. Ontario applied — Anxiety, depression and migraine impairments cumulatively substantial at decision date — Left shoulder impairment not substantial — Substantial restriction in workplace functioning established contextually — Substantial impairment and workplace restriction found | Procedure — Tribunal discretion — Late‑filed evidence — Admission of psychotherapist report filed shortly before hearing — Prejudice to Respondent assessed as minimal — Use for clarification questions noted — Report admitted | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether to set a medical review date — Continuing psychotherapy and possible access to headache medication considered — One‑year medical review appropriate and requested — Review date set" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt511", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 511 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-12", "docket_number": "2508-05519", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk38j", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of person with a disability — Whether appellant met s. 4(1) ODSPA — Substantial impairments and substantial restrictions analysed — Guidance from Gray and Crane applied — Whole person and cumulative effect considered — Director’s decision wrong under s. 23(10) — Personal care, community and workplace domains assessed — Appeal granted | Evidence — Medical evidence — Weight of evidence — Verification by prescribed professional through Health Status Report — Limited specialist reports not required — Jemiolo noted on treatment as a factor — Asthma given limited weight, anxiety, alcoholism and bilateral foot pain significant — Testimony credible, consistent and aligned with HSR, ADLI and IEWS — Evidence accepted | Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Review date — Whether to set review under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Appellant early in recovery with ongoing psychotherapy referral — Need to stabilise emotional and addiction-related impairments recognised — Functional limitations monitored over time — Review date set for two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt447", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 447 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-12", "docket_number": "2507-04740", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk335", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Assessment — Whether decision to assess overpayment was correct — ODSP Act, subs. 23(1) onus — Payments of any nature considered income under Reg 222/98, s. 37(1) — Income support paid despite unreported earnings — Appellant received funds in excess of entitlement — Appeal granted in part — Overpayment upheld | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Calculation — Whether amount of the overpayment was correctly calculated — Reg 222/98, s. 29(1) budgetary requirements minus income — No applicable exemption to employment income under s. 37(1) — Evidence of employment income accepted — Amount of excess $12,574.37 confirmed — Calculation not in error — Calculation confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Recovery — Whether circumstances affecting recovery justify non-recovery — Surdivall v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2014 ONCA 240 — Administrative error and lack of follow up by caseworker — Appellant legally blind with communication barriers — Financial hardship including increased transportation costs — Accountability to the taxpayer considered — Overpayment unrecoverable in full — Recovery refused" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt502", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 502 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-10", "docket_number": "2508-05374", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk37l", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A1", "reasons": [ "A1" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Employment Insurance income — Whether the decision to assess an overpayment was correct under the Act — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 37(1) non‑exempt income applied — Subsection 23(10) onus not met by Appellant — Undeclared EI not deducted from income support — Funds received in excess of entitlement — Overpayment confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Overpayments — Calculation of amount — Was the overpayment correctly calculated using CRA records for the relevant period? — Subsection 29(1) calculation framework considered — Director’s written submissions and CRA charts accepted — No alternate documentation provided — No error demonstrated in revised Internal Review total — Amount confirmed | Pensions and social benefits — Recovery — Financial hardship and administrative error — Should recovery be reduced or deferred? — Surdivall v. Ontario considered on flexibility in collection — Credible hardship evidence accepted — Delay in file review and lack of due diligence found — Balance of objectives in s. 1 of the Act — Recovery reduced by 80 percent and deferred six months, appeal allowed in part" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt501", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 501 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-10", "docket_number": "2508-05395", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk37s", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — Ontario Disability Support Program — Definition of disability — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” within s. 4(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Guidance from Gray and Crane on “substantial” impairment — Medical evidence and testimony assessed cumulatively — Director’s decision found wrong — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Prescribed qualifications — Whether impairments, duration and restrictions were verified as required by s. 4(1)(c) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Health Status Report and supplemental chart weighed — Unverified conditions and restrictions disregarded — Verified impairments accepted as continuous or recurrent and expected to last — Unverified conditions disregarded | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Substantial restrictions — Whether substantial impairments resulted in substantial restriction in personal care, community or workplace — Gallier considered on contextual assessment — ADLI ratings and Psychiatric Assessment aligned with testimony — Personal care supports and limited mobility established — Substantial restriction found | Pensions and social benefits — Review date — O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Whether a review date should be set despite finding of disability — Impact of financial stress and rural transportation barriers on impairments noted — Potential improvement with additional resources considered — Review date set at two years" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt504", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 504 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-02-09", "docket_number": "2508-05383", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kk37n", "inferred_outcome": "Granted", "confidence": 95, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A2", "reasons": [ "A2" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "Pensions and social benefits — ODSPA eligibility — Person with a disability — Whether the Appellant is a “person with a disability” under s. 4(1) — Definition interpreted in light of Gray v. Director, ODSP and Crane — Medical and testimonial evidence weighed, including HSR, IEWS and ADLI — Director’s decision found wrong under s. 23(10) — Appeal granted | Pensions and social benefits — Verification — Medical verification under s. 4(1)(c) — Were impairments, duration and restrictions properly verified by a person with prescribed qualifications? — Anxiety-related impairments verified in HSR — Migraine headaches unverified and disregarded for this appeal — No evidence from a person with prescribed qualifications on migraines — Determination confined to verified impairments — Unverified condition excluded | Pensions and social benefits — Disability test — Substantial impairment — Whether anxiety constituted a substantial impairment under s. 4(1)(a) — Flexible concept applied per Gray and Crane — Appellant’s sworn testimony through interpreter aligned with clinical records — Pharmacotherapy and psychiatric referral considered under Jemiolo — Substantial impairment found | Pensions and social benefits — Activities of daily living — Workplace function — Whether impairments resulted in substantial restriction in the workplace under s. 4(1)(b) — Tribunal considered Appellant in her own situation per Gallier — Evidence of panic, syncope, hyperventilation and daily flashbacks — ADLI not determinative — Workplace functioning substantially restricted — Disability established | Pensions and social benefits — Review — Review date under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 5(1) — Should a review date be set where impairments may improve? — Appellant’s age, pending psychoanalysis and interpreter-supported treatment considered — Hope of improvement identified — Review date set for two years — Income support payable if otherwise eligible under O. Reg. 222/98, s. 17 — Review date ordered" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt335", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 335 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-01-30", "docket_number": "2507-04695", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kjvfs", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "roommate — income — overpayment was correct — information — disclosure" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt223", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 223 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-01-26", "docket_number": "2506-04417", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kjvb0", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "overpayment was correct — condo — business income — calculation — financial hardship" ] }, { "case_id": "2026onsbt83", "citation": "2026 ONSBT 83 (CanLII)", "decision_date": "2026-01-09", "docket_number": "2507-04467", "url": "https://canlii.ca/t/kjbks", "inferred_outcome": "Denied", "confidence": 92, "tier": "A", "rule_id": "A8", "reasons": [ "A8" ], "score_breakdown": null, "keywords_api": [ "overpayment was correct — income — dental care — recovery — amount" ] } ]