Sheldrick v. Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services)
The Divisional Court erred by characterizing the Tribunal’s exercise of weighing evidence as an error of law; because the Tribunal considered and explained why medical reports and testimony did not satisfy the substantial impairment requirement, its factual assessment stood and the Divisional Court’s decision was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2008 ONCA 509
- Parties
- Appellant: Debbie Sheldrick; Respondent: Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program of the Ministry of Community and Social Services
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 24 June 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Divisional Court Decision Arising From Social Benefits Tribunal Review / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From the Divisional Court
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; Divisional Court decision set aside.
- Legal Topics
- Standard of Review, Weight of Evidence, Appeal on Question of Law, Judicial Review Limits
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Debbie Sheldrick
Appellant
Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program of the Ministry of Community and Social Services
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Divisional Court Decision Arising From Social Benefits Tribunal Review / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From the Divisional Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Divisional Court mischaracterized the Tribunal’s factual weighing as an error of law
- 2 Whether the Tribunal properly considered and weighed medical and testimonial evidence on the substantial impairment requirement
- 3 Whether the Divisional Court should have intervened in the Tribunal’s assessment of evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The Divisional Court erred by characterizing the Tribunal’s exercise of weighing evidence as an error of law; because the Tribunal considered and explained why medical reports and testimony did not satisfy the substantial impairment requirement, its factual assessment stood and the Divisional Court’s decision was set aside.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; Divisional Court decision set aside.
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- Divisional Court decision set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Sheldrick v. Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2008-06-24 Neutral citation 2008 ONCA 509 Docket numbers C48147 Judges Blair, Robert Ashley; Juriansz, Russell G.; Epstein, Gloria Jean Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: Sheldrick v. Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services), 2008 ONCA 509 DATE: 20080624 DOCKET: C48147 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO BLAIR, JURIANSZ and EPSTEIN JJ.A. BETWEEN: DEBBIE SHELDRICK Appellant (Respondent) and DIRECTOR OF THE ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM OF THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES Respondent (Appellant) Rebecca Givens and Cheryl Ellison for the appellant James Arenburg for the respondent Heard: June 23, 2008 On appeal from the order of the Divisional Court (Justices Jennings, Stach and Gauthier) dated March 19, 2007. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] In our opinion the appeal must be allowed. An appeal lies to the Divisional Court from a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal on a question of law. Here, which the Divisional Court characterized the Tribunal’s error as one of law, it seems to us that it was in substance disagreeing with the Tribunal’s weighing of the evidence. [2] The Tribunal considered and weighed all of the evidence before it, including the report of Dr. Davidson and that of the psychologist, Dr. Bassis. It explained in its reasons why that evidence, when viewed in the context of all the evidence before it, including the “Activities of Daily Living” and the appellant’s own testimony was not determinative of the “substantial impairment” requirement. It was open to the Tribunal to do so on the record. Respectfully, we do not agree with the Divisional Court that the Tribunal was either required “to accept” that evidence or that it disregarded or failed to appreciate the relevant medical evidence. [3] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and the decision of the Divisional Court set aside. The appellant does not seek costs.