Volnyansky v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)
The Superior Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to entertain an action challenging a decision of the Statutory Benefits Tribunal; the appropriate remedy is appeal to the Divisional Court on a question of law or judicial review, therefore Justice Gray correctly struck out the statements of claim and the appeals are...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2011 ONCA 434
- Parties
- Appellant: Lubov Volnyansky; Respondent: Her Majesty The Queen In Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services; Respondent: Regional Municipality of Peel
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 3 June 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Superior Court
- Outcome
- Appeals dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Jurisdiction, Tribunal Decisions, Ontario Works Act
- 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
Lubov Volnyansky
Appellant
Her Majesty The Queen In Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services
Respondent
Regional Municipality of Peel
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Superior Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Superior Court has jurisdiction to hear an action challenging a decision of the Statutory Benefits Tribunal
- 2 Whether the proper remedy is an appeal to the Divisional Court on a question of law or judicial review rather than an action in Superior Court
- 3 Whether Justice Gray erred in striking out the statements of claim
Ratio Decidendi
The Superior Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to entertain an action challenging a decision of the Statutory Benefits Tribunal; the appropriate remedy is appeal to the Divisional Court on a question of law or judicial review, therefore Justice Gray correctly struck out the statements of claim and the appeals are dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeals dismissed
Orders
- Appeals dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Volnyansky v. Ontario (Community and Social Services) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2011-06-03 Neutral citation 2011 ONCA 434 Docket numbers C53384, C53392 Judges Blair, Robert Ashley; Watt, David; Epstein, Gloria Jean Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: Volnyansky v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2011 ONCA 434 DATE: 20110603 DOCKET: C53384/C53392 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Blair, Watt and Epstein JJ.A. BETWEEN Lubov Volnyansky Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen In Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services and Regional Municipality of Peel Respondents Lubov Volnyansky, in person Baaba Forson, for Her Majesty The Queen In Right of Ontario Ann Dinnert for Regional Municipality of Peel Heard: June 3, 2011 On appeal from the order of Justice Douglas K. Gray of the Superior Court of Justice dated May 26, 2010. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] This endorsement applies both to this appeal and to Ms. Volnyansky’s appeal in C53384. [2] Ms. Volnyansky expressed many complaints to us this morning about the way she has been (allegedly) mistreated in the social welfare system generally and in particular, with respect to the calculation of benefits and deductions respecting her claims under the Ontario Works Act. On these appeals, however, these issues are not properly before us and cannot be decided. [3] The only question properly before us is whether Justice Gray erred in dismissing the two actions that Ms. Volnyansky commenced in Superior Court. We are satisfied that he did not. [4] On the issues as pleaded in the two statements of claim, Ms. Volnyansky’s real complaints relate to a decision of the Statutory Benefits Tribunal requiring her to repay $1,314 in benefits received under the Ontario Works Act. The Tribunal’s decision cannot be reviewed in an action. The proper procedure is to appeal the decision on a question of law to the Divisional Court or to seek judicial review of the reconsideration order, before the Divisional Court. Justice Gray was correct in striking out the statements of claim on the basis that the Superior Court of Justice has no jurisdiction by way of action over decisions of the Social Benefits Tribunal. [5] In the circumstances of this case, there is no basis upon which this court can proceed as if it had reconstituted itself as the Divisional Court. [6] The appeals are therefore dismissed. We make no order as to costs.