On Friday March 18, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Yatar v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex. The Income Security Advocacy Centre intervened in this case to highlight the perspective of social assistance recipients in Ontario. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with ISAC’s argument that a limited right to appeal certain tribunal decisions does not restrict a person’s ability to seek judicial review of other questions not dealt with in the appeal. This is an important access to justice victory for people living in poverty. People who rely on social assistance will be able to seek judicial review of Social Benefits Tribunal decisions that can significantly impact their lives.
Background
Social assistance recipients have a statutory right to appeal certain decisions of the Social Benefits Tribunal to the Divisional Court of Ontario, but only on questions of law. This means that there are some decisions that they cannot appeal. For example, a person cannot appeal Social Benefits Tribunal decisions of fact, such as the accuracy of an overpayment calculation. They also cannot appeal Social Benefits Tribunal decisions of mixed fact and law, such as whether a person financially qualifies to receive social assistance.
These are important decisions that affect an individual’s ability to afford food, shelter, medication, and that affect their health and quality of life. However, if a person wants to challenge an unreasonable Social Benefits Tribunal decision on these issues, their only option is an application for judicial review at the Divisional Court of Ontario.
The lower courts (the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Divisional Court of Ontario) had found that judicial review should only be available in “rare” or “exceptional” circumstances. This significantly restricted the ability of social assistance recipients to challenge unreasonable Social Benefits Tribunal decisions that raise issues of fact or mixed fact and law.
The Income Security Advocacy Centre and our sister legal clinic, the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario, intervened at both the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. We argued that the lower courts’ decisions to restrict access to judicial review was legally incorrect. We also argued that such a restriction would create additional barriers for social assistance recipients, perpetuate their disadvantage, and threaten their access to the basic necessities they need to survive.
Supreme Court’s decision
All nine judges of the Supreme Court agreed with ISAC’s argument that a limited right of appeal on questions of law, does not limit a person from seeking judicial review of other questions. The Ontario Court of Appeal and the Divisional Court of Ontario were wrong when they stated that where there is a limited right of appeal, judicial review should only be available in rare or exceptional cases.
This is an important win for social assistance recipients. It means they will have a meaningful option to challenge unreasonable decisions that determine their access to income assistance. It is also a win for tenants who need to challenge decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board that affect their housing. The Supreme Court’s decision means that these tribunals, which make important decisions that affect people’s daily lives, can continue to be held accountable where their decisions are unreasonable.
ISAC staff lawyers Nabila F. Qureshi and Anu Bakshi, together with Clinic Resource Office staff lawyer Anna Rosenbluth represented ISAC at the Supreme Court of Canada.
ISAC’s factum can be found in our Publications section here and is also posted on the Supreme Court of Canada’s website here.
The recording of ISAC’s oral submissions at the Supreme Court can be viewed here, starting at 1:12:45.