Alongside Mississauga Community Legal Services, ISAC successfully co-represented Ms. M.I. in a fresh hearing, disputing the overpayment of over $95,000. This is the first SBT decision to cite Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2023 ONCA 476, and confirm intimate partner violence takes many forms, including physical violence, psychological abuse, financial abuse and intimidation. The Social Benefits Tribunal affirmed that it must consider coercive control and cultural context in determining whether a spouse is dependant under the Ontario Works Act.
As background, M.I., a single mother of three who received on Ontario Works recipient, was assessed an alleged overpayment of $95,384.43 for the period January 2015 to July 2021, alleging that she had not been living “as a single person” and had failed to provide information regarding her marital status. Last year, ISAC represented M.I. in her Divisional Court appeal, where the Court ruled that the Social Benefits Tribunal had breached procedural fairness by providing inadequate reasons, and ordered a fresh hearing in M.I. v. Administrator, Ontario Works Region of Peel, 2024 ONSC 1975.
At the fresh Social Benefits Tribunal hearing, M.I. testified that she lived apart from her estranged husband during the entire time in question, but her abusive husband unpredictably showed up uninvited. She did not object when he stayed in her home briefly due to his poor mental health, relationship with her kids and her fear. She explained that she did not seek a divorce in Canada because it would bring shame to her family in the community, and she was afraid of how he or his family would react.
In allowing the appeal, the Tribunal found that her estranged husband was not a dependant because they did not live together. In determining the issue of co-residency, the Tribunal recognized that the analysis should include, among other factors, consideration of any cultural or religious influences, the power dynamics between M.I. and her abusive spouse, and her economic vulnerability. The Tribunal acknowledged that coercive control and the corrosive nature of domestic violence have been formally recognised in the provincial jurisprudence.
Importantly, the Tribunal confirmed that since her estranged spouse was not a dependant under the legislation, there was no requirement for her to provide his income or asset information, negating the basis for the overpayment assessment.
The Tribunal concluded that the Administrator’s decision was incorrect, rescinded the overpayment, and ordered full reimbursement of any amounts previously recovered. See the decision here.