Wedekind v. Director of Income Maintenance (Ont.), (1994) 75 O.A.C. 358 (CA)

• Judge: Griffiths, Galligan and Weiler, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: November 14, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1994), 75 O.A.C. 358 (CA);1994 CanLII 1659 (NS CA);1994 CanLII 1659 (ON CA);21 OR (3d) 289;121 DLR (4th) 1;[1994] OJ No 2849 (QL);75 OAC 358;7 CCEL (2d) 161

Wedekind v. Income Maintenance Dir. (1994), 75 O.A.C. 358 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Caroline Wedekind (appellant) v. The Director of Income Maintenance Branch of the Ministry of Community and Social Services (respondent)

Susan Clark (appellant) v. The Director of Income Maintenance Branch of the Ministry of Community and Social Services (respondent)

(C18876; C18877)

Indexed As: Wedekind v. Director of Income Maintenance (Ont.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Griffiths, Galligan and Weiler, JJ.A.

December 13, 1994.

Summary:

Wedekind and Clark applied separately for benefits under the Family Benefits Act. In both cases the Director of Income Mainte­nance Branch of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, using the gross amount of unemployment insurance benefits received by or on behalf of the applicants or their spouses, held that their income was too high to qualify for certain Family Benefits Act benefits. Wedekind and Clark appealed, arguing that it was the net amount (i.e., after tax amount) of unemployment insurance benefits that was to be used for determining entitlement under the Family Benefits Act.

The Social Assistance Review Board allowed the appeals and set aside the deci­sions of the Director, ruling that it was the net amount of unemployment insurance benefits that was to be used in determining entitlement. The Director appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court, Van Camp, J., dissenting, in a decision reported 62 O.A.C. 70, allowed the Director's appeal. The court reversed the decisions of the Social Assistance Review Board and restored the decisions of the Director. Wedekind and Clark appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Weiler, J.A., dissenting in the result, dismissed the appeals.

Social Assistance - Topic 855

Claims - Benefits - Entitlement - Bars - Income of applicant - The Family Benefits Act Regulations, s. 13(2).13, provided that unemployment insurance benefits received by or on behalf of an applicant must be included in income for determining enti­tlement - The Social Assistance Review Board ruled that only the net (after tax) amount of unemployment insurance was to be considered - On appeal under the Fam­ily Benefits Act, s. 15, the Ontario Divi­sional Court reversed the board's decision - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, holding that (1) the standard of review of the board's decision was correct­ness; (2) s. 13(2).13 was clear and unam­biguous (i.e., the gross amount of unem­ployment insurance benefits was to be considered), and (3) since the board's decision was not "correct" in law, it was properly overturned.

Social Assistance - Topic 883

Claims - Benefits - Calculation of - Family income - Unemployment insurance - [See Social Assistance - Topic 855 ].

Social Assistance - Topic 1028

Claims - Appeals to courts - Standard of review - The Family Benefits Act, s. 15, pro­vided for appeal from the Social Assist­ance Review Board to the Divisional Court on questions, other than questions of fact alone - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the standard of review on an appeal to the Divisional Court under s. 15 - The court concluded that the standard of review was one of correctness in a case where the matter on appeal from the board to the Divisional Court was strictly an issue of statutory interpretation - See paragraphs 7 to 20.

Cases Noticed:

Kerr v. Metropolitan Toronto (Department of Social Services) (1991), 49 O.A.C. 362; 4 O.R.(3d) 430 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 8, 69].

Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [paras. 10, 37].

Abrahams v. Canada (Attorney General), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 2; 46 N.R. 185, refd to. [para. 15].

Québec (Communauté urbaine) et autres v. Corporation Notre-Dame de Bon-Se­cours (1994), 171 N.R. 161; 63 Q.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Buanderie centrale de Montréal Inc. et autres v. Montréal (Ville) et autres (1994), 171 N.R. 191; 63 Q.A.C. 191 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Statutes Noticed:

Family Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 151, sect. 13 [para. 18 et seq.]; sect. 15(1), sect. 15(3), sect. 15(4) [para. 7].

Family Benefits Act Regulations (Ont.), reg. 318, sect. 1(3)(d) [para. 50]; sect. 11 [para. 44]; sect. 12 [paras. 2, 21]; sect. 13(1), sect. 13(2) [para. 22 et seq]; sect. 13(2).13 [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 13(7), sect. 15(6) [para. 44].

General Welfare Assistance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. G-6, sect. 11(2) [para. 18].

Income Tax Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I-2, sect. 8 [para. 64].

Unemployment Insurance Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. U-1, generally [para. 3].

Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. V-5, sect. 10(1) [para. 18].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Blacks Law Dictionary [para. 48].

Driedger, Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 105 [para. 39].

Family Benefits Act Policy and Procedural Guidelines, Statement of Policy Intent, generally [para. 50].

Morgan, Vivien, Stubart: What the Courts Did Next (1987), 35 Can. Tax J. 155, pp. 169, 170 [para. 41].

Social Assistance Review Board, Annual Report 1992-93 (1993), pp. 37, 44, 55, 67, 80, 81 [para. 43].

Social Assistance Review Committee, Transitions (1988), pp. 276 to 282 [para. 29].

Counsel:

Chris Paliare, Suzanne M. Dajczak and Andrew Lokan, for the appellants Wede­kind and Clark;

Rebecca J. Givens, for the respondent, Director;

J.G. Cowan and Marie Dyach, for the intervenor, the Social Assistance Review Board.

This appeal was heard on November 14, 1994, before Griffiths, Galligan and Weiler, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was released on De­cember 13, 1994, including the following opinions:

Griffiths, J.A. (Galligan, J.A., concur­ring) - see paragraphs 1 to 32;

Weiler, J.A., dissenting in the result - see paragraphs 33 to 71.