Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Are Disabilities ― Government Benefits Can’t Be Denied

On September 16, 2010, the Ontario Court of Appeal rendered an important ruling that examines discrimination based on disability under human rights law. The ruling confirms a lower court judgment that two individuals are entitled to long-term disability benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act (ODSPA) because of their severe dependence on alcohol. The Court decided that denying such benefits violates Ontario’s Human Rights Code.

Ten years ago, the director of the Ontario Disability Support Program decided that Robert Tranchemontagne and Norman Werbeski should not get disability benefits because their addiction was their “sole impairment”. He based his decision on section 5(2) of the ODSPA, which explicitly states that a person who is dependent on, or addicted to, alcohol (or drugs) is not eligible for assistance. Both individuals appealed the director’s decision to the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) arguing that alcoholism is a disability within the meaning of the Ontario Human Rights Code. Because the Human Rights Code take precedence over other legislation, s. 5(2)(a) of the ODSPA constituted discrimination and was therefore inapplicable.

While the Social Benefits Tribunal held alcoholism to be a “disabling condition” that “substantially restricts” working ability, the tribunal dismissed their appeals on the grounds that s. 5(2) of the ODSPA makes the two individuals ineligible for long-term disability benefits under the ODSPA. Moreover, the tribunal argued that it did not have jurisdiction to hear cases on the applicability of the Human Rights Code or to consider whether s. 5(2) of the ODSPA was discriminatory. The Divisional Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal both agreed that the Social Benefits Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to make such a ruling.

The case went to the Supreme Court of Canada—not to decide whether s. 5(2)(a) of the ODSPA conflicts with the Code, but whether the SBT erred when it decided that it could not deal with the issue itself.

In 2006, the Supreme Court concluded that the Social Benefits Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the Code:

Statutory tribunals [such as the SBT] empowered to decide questions of law are presumed to have the power to look beyond their enabling statutes in order to apply the whole law to a matter properly before them. Here, the ODSPA and the Ontario Works Act, 1997 confirm that the SBT can decide questions of law. As a result, when the SBT decides whether an applicant is eligible for income support, it is presumed to be able to consider any legal source that might influence its decision on eligibility, including the Code.

As a result, the Supreme Court returned the case to the Social Benefits Tribunal stating that the SBT can rule on the applicability of s. 5(2)(a) of the ODSPA, and it can decide if a section of the law violates the Ontario Human Rights Code.

On November 30, 2006, the Social Benefits Tribunal reversed its earlier decision and found that section 5(2) of the ODSPA was contrary to the Human Rights Code and should not be applied. The tribunal added that Tranchemontagne and Werbeski were “persons with a disability” and therefore eligible for ODSP benefits. That did not satisfy the director, who appealed to the Divisional Court. In April 2009, the Divisional Court agreed with the SBT and rejected the government’s argument that denying disability benefits was in the best interests of individuals with a substance abuse problem. According to Accessibility News:

The government failed to provide a “tenable justification” for its decision to treat addicts differently from other people with disabilities, wrote Justice Denise Bellamy for the court. The Ontario law “promotes a stereotypical attitude towards addicted persons. It suggests that those who do not suffer from an additional medically recognized disorder are not genuinely disabled, or in any case are not as disabled as persons with concurrent disorders,” wrote Judge Bellamy.

However, the director, on behalf of the government, continued to disagree and appealed this last decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Page 1 of 3 | Next page