Category Archives: Resources

ODSP Rate Increase for Medical Travel: Moving in the Right Direction

RavenLaw gratefully acknowledges the contribution of this post by summer student Emily Cumbaa

A recent case before the Ontario Divisional Court examined ODSP’s reimbursement rate for medical travel. After many years of receiving reimbursement that only covered their operational travel costs, Ontarians who are on disability support can now seek reimbursement at a rate that covers both operational and ownership costs associated with their travel for medical treatments, such as appointments with out-of-town specialists. The case and the subsequent policy changes reveal that advancements in disability rights are slow, uneven, and hard-won.

The Case

Wayne Corrigan is a recipient of benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”), Ontario’s program providing income and other financial supports for individuals with a disability. Mr. Corrigan frequently travels between Oshawa and Toronto for specialized medical treatments.

A Regulation under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act states that benefits will be paid for “the cost of transportation that is reasonably required in any month for medical treatment for members of the benefit unit… if the cost of that transportation in the month is $15 or more” (O. Reg. 222/98, s. 44(1)1(iii.1)).  Under ODSP policy, Mr. Corrigan could only be reimbursed for his medical travel at the rate of $0.18 per kilometre. However, Mr. Corrigan estimated that his actual travel costs were $0.45 per kilometre.

Mr. Corrigan asked ODSP to review its rate and reimburse him at the rate of $0.45 per kilometre. ODSP denied that request, and also denied an internal review. Mr. Corrigan then appealed to the Social Benefits Tribunal. The Tribunal denied Mr. Corrigan’s appeal.

The Tribunal relied on its reasoning from an earlier decision, which also denied extra reimbursement, distinguishing between operational and ownership costs associated with a vehicle. The Tribunal found that the phrase “cost of transportation” in the legislation included only operational, and not ownership costs.

Mr. Corrigan appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the Ontario Divisional Court. In October 2016, the Court ruled that limiting reimbursement for medical travel to only “operational” expenses was unreasonable. The Court sent the matter back to the Tribunal “for redetermination of the reasonable costs of transportation,” and emphasized both operational and ownership costs can be included in costs of transportation.

A quick note for everyone who is interested in administrative law: the Court found that the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness, despite both parties agreeing that correctness was the appropriate standard. The Court’s finding reinforces that administrative tribunals are owed substantial deference, even on a statutory appeal as opposed to an application for judicial review.

The Government’s Response

In January 2017, the Ontario government increased the mileage rate for medical travel to $0.41 per kilometre in the North and Northeast Regions of Ontario, and $0.40 per kilometre everywhere else in the province. This represents an increase of more than 220%. The medical travel mileage rates are retroactive to October 1, 2016.

The new rates also apply for self-employed persons on ODSP if they use their personal car for business travel to generate income. The business travel rates are not retroactive, and therefore came into effect on January 9, 2017.

The Takeaway

This case and the subsequent policy changes highlight that advancements in disability rights are:

  1. slow;
  2. uneven; and
  3. hard-won.

Advancements are slow. When the new increases were announced, the rates for medical travel had not changed in 17 years. In that time, the cost of driving had increased substantially, largely driven by gas prices. The Social Benefits Tribunal had more than once denied an increase to the rate for medical travel.

Advancements are uneven. The Divisional Court noted that other programs paid higher rates for medical travel than ODSP. The rate increase also applies to Ontario Works recipients. But before the increase took effect, every municipality in the province was responsible for setting their own rate, creating differences across the province.

Advancements are hard-won. ODSP and the Tribunal were both reluctant to review and increase the medical travel rate.  It is not surprising, therefore, that the Income Advocacy Support Centre reported that the rate increases were the result of years of advocacy work. This work included legal supports, a letter to the Minister, and collaboration between community and advocacy groups.

Thankfully for people on ODSP who must travel with their car for medical reasons, they can now be reimbursed at a rate that reflects their actual travel costs.

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, which cannot be given without consideration of your individual circumstances.]

Class action launched against the Canadian Armed Forces for sexual assault and harassment

A group of former members of the Canadian Armed Forces, represented by Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP have launched a class action lawsuit on behalf of women and men who experienced sexual assault or sexual harassment in their service with the Canadian military. The lawsuit was initiated on Monday, November 28, 2016, when a Notice of Action was filed in Ontario Superior Court.

The plaintiffs, Amy Graham, Nadine Schultz-Nielsen, and Larry Beattie, are members of It’s Just 700, a Canada-wide online resource and peer support group for survivors of Military Sexual Trauma (MST). The group decided to bring a class action against the Canadian Armed Forces, in an effort to change a system that condones sexual misconduct and punishes victims instead of perpetrators. The claim alleges that the Armed Forces have systemically failed to prevent and protect against sexual assault and sexual harassment, including by discouraging victims from reporting, failing to investigate reported incidents, and retaliating against members who come forward.

The group filed the lawsuit on the same day that Statistics Canada revealed the results of its survey on sexual misconduct in the Armed Forces. The survey found that 1.7% of regular force and 2.6% of reserve force members had reported experiencing sexual assault in the past 12 months. More than one quarter of female members reported experiencing sexual assault at some point in their military career. Because the survey excluded any members who were on courses or had been released, and because of the continued stigma associated with reporting, there is good reason to believe the actual rates of sexual misconduct are much higher than found in the survey.

Watch for further updates on the class action lawsuit on the Raven Law website.

If you or a family member are a current or former member of the Canadian Armed Forces who has experienced sexual assault or sexual harassment in the military, you can contact our firm at armedforcesclassaction@ravenlaw.com. 

For media inquiries, please contact Andrew Raven at 613-567-2902 or araven@ravenlaw.com.

notice-of-action-16-70743-cp-issued-november-28-2016

 

 

Federal Court tells Canadian Human Rights Commission to do better

In a recent judgment, the Federal Court overturned a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and delivered a strong rebuke of the Commission’s continued mishandling of a human rights complaint. This judgment affirms the importance of a complainant’s right to be heard, and calls upon the Commission to improve its procedures.

Background

The complainant, Michele Bergeron, had filed two human rights complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. First, she had complained that her employer failed to accommodate her on the basis of her disability. Later, she complained that the employer retaliated against her for filing the first complaint. Both complaints were initially dismissed by the Commission. However, the Federal Court overturned the dismissal of the retaliation complaint, because of a glaring error in the Commission’s procedure. The Commission typically prepares an investigation report regarding a human rights complaint, which is submitted, along with the parties’ comments, to the Commissioner for a decision. In this case, the Commission had prepared two separate reports, one for each complaint. However, the Commission’s decision dismissing the retaliation complaint quoted from the report for the first complaint.

The Federal Court found that the decision, relying on reasons related to a completely separate complaint, could not stand. The retaliation complaint was therefore returned to the Commission, where it was dismissed a second time. Ms. Bergeron filed a second application for judicial review to the Federal Court, alleging that, once again, the Commission had committed significant procedural errors in her case. 

Federal Court judgment

In Bergeron v Canada (Attorney General), the Federal Court once again struck down the Commission’s decision, on the basis that the Commission had committed multiple serious breaches of procedural fairness. First, the Court found that the Commission rendered its decision based on an inaccurate record: the Commission had included in the record the Applicant’s submissions from the first complaint, rather than her submissions regarding the retaliation complaint. The Court found this to be a clear breach of fairness: “one may with considerable confidence say that little if anything is more fundamental in administrative law than the requirement that a decision-maker hear both sides of a dispute. Yet here the Commission breached this fundamental rule of natural justice.”

Second, the Court found that the Commission had also failed to review a final set of submissions filed by the Applicant, because those submissions had expressly identified the error in the record. The Court noted that, if the Commission had reviewed the Applicant’s final submissions, “it is inconceivable that, in such circumstances, the Commission would continue to consider – let alone decide – this case without first obtaining the Applicant’s missing submissions on the case.” On the basis of these fundamental errors, the complaint was sent back to the Commission for reconsideration.

Canadian Human Rights Commission criticized

In his judgment, the Honourable Justice Brown had some strong words for the Commission regarding its overall handling of Ms. Bergeron’s complaint. He noted the uncontested evidence that a member of the Commission’s staff had told Ms. Bergeron, when the complaint was referred back to the Commission, that the Commission would simply be correcting a “cut and paste” error. He found that “these comments do not describe conduct I would expect from staff of the Commission”, and stated: “Commission staff should avoid appearing dismissive as was the case here.”

Justice Brown also emphasized that the Commission’s decision regarding this complaint has now been struck down twice for procedural unfairness, noting: “It appears to me, with all due respect, that there is room for improvement in the Commission’s Early Resolution procedures”. Regarding the third consideration of the complaint, he admonished the Commission: “It should be done properly this time.” This judgment provides an important reminder that the Commission’s gate-keeping role impacts complainants’ fundamental rights, and therefore the Commission must perform that role with diligence and care.

The Applicant was represented in this application by Amanda Montague-Reinholdt of RavenLaw.

 

 

Canadian Armed Forces class action in the news

Several media outlets have reported on the class action lawsuit filed on Monday by members of It’s Just 700, a Canada-wide online resource and peer support group for survivors of Military Sexual Trauma (MST). The representative plaintiffs, Amy Graham, Nadine Schultz-Nielsen, and Larry Beattie, have given interviews about their experiences in the Canadian military and the reasons they have decided to come forward and pursue justice on behalf of victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces.

You can read more about the lawsuit here:

CBC News: Ex military members go to court alleging sexual assaults, misconduct

CTV News: Class-action lawsuit launched against military over alleged sexual misconduct

iHeart Radio: Military & Veterans Group Filing Class Action over Sex Assaults

L’actualité: Agressions sexuelles dans l’armée : la résistance s’organise

Radio-Canada: Agressions sexuelles : recours collectif contre l’armée canadienne

Ottawa Now with Evan Solomon: LISTEN: Military Veterans launching lawsuit against Feds after Sex Assaults while on duty

CTV News: Former Armed Forces member shares tale of alleged sexual assault

If you or a family member are a current or former member of the Canadian Armed Forces who has experienced sexual assault or sexual harassment in the military, you can contact our firm at armedforcesclassaction@ravenlaw.com. 

For media inquiries, please contact Andrew Raven at 613-567-2902 or araven@ravenlaw.com.

 

David Yazbeck Appears Before Parliamentary Committee on Whistleblower Law

David Yazbeck, who has extensive experience representing employees in relation to whistleblowing generally and the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act specifically, was recently invited by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to testify as part of its review of the Act. David testified on February 9th in order to provide his perspective on the effectiveness of the law.

The PSDPA provides a method for federal public service employees to disclose information that they believe could show that a wrongdoing has been committed or is about to be committed. It is also intended to protect employees who have made disclosures from reprisal.

Further information regarding the Committee’s review of the PSDPA can be found here.

Federal Court of Appeal Clarifies Interpretation of Whistleblower Law

In a recent judgment from the Federal Court of Appeal, the Court has provided some needed clarification regarding the interpretation of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. Sylvie Therrien was a whistleblower who went public with information regarding the use of quotas in order to reduce employment insurance costs. Eventually, Ms. Therrien was suspended, had her reliability status revoked, and was terminated. Ms. Therrien filed grievances against those three actions which proceeded before an adjudicator from the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. None of the grievances alleged reprisal, however.

Ms. Therrien filed a complaint with the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner alleging that each of these actions also represented reprisal for her public disclosure. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Commissioner’s Office refused to assess it on the basis that it was being dealt with as part of the grievance process.

In its January 17, 2017 decision, the Court of Appeal set aside the Commissioner’s decision. The Court made two important rulings. First, the Court said that the Commissioner could not refuse to deal with a complaint simply because the actions in the complaint are referred to in some other proceeding. Rather, the Commissioner has an obligation to determine whether that other proceeding would actually deal with the reprisal allegations on their merits.

Second, the Commissioner’s Office had advised Ms. Therrien’s counsel that it would be assessing the admissibility of the complaint on the basis of one section of the Act but then decided not to deal with the complaint on the basis of another section of the Act. The Court found that this was procedurally unfair.

Although the matter has been sent back to the Commissioner’s Office to be dealt with, the Commissioner has decided to hold the complaint in abeyance pending the outcome of Ms. Therrien’s adjudication proceedings.

Ms. Therrien is represented by David Yazbeck of RavenLaw, in both the reprisal complaint and the grievances.

 

Jacob Saltiel Judges First-Year Law Students Moot at U of O

On November 5, 2016, Jacob Saltiel participated as a judge in the University of Ottawa Law’s moot court competition for first-year students. Jacob judged two groups of students who presented arguments based on the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Spence v BMO Trust Company. Jacob provided commentary and guidance to the impressive participants on their oral advocacy and presentation.