http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/mcss/english/pillars/social/directives/ow_policy_directives.htm
For more stories go to http://welfarelegal.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
The Proof Is In The Pudding
Hats off to the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) for derailing a very dangerous move not to allow people on Ontario Works or ODSP to have representation other than a lawyer or paralegal at a hearing.
On page 2 of every Notice of Hearing the Tribunal now clearly states
Lawyers and Representatives (Legal and Non-Legal)
It is not necessary to have someone represent you at the hearing, but if you prefer representation, find a lawyer or other representative as soon as possible. Hearings will not be rescheduled because of delays in seeking assistance.
You must advise the Tribunal in writing of the name of your representative. Before the Tribunal can speak with your lawyer or other representative, you must give us written authorization. Until we receive authorization, we may only communicate with you about your appeal.
WHO MAY ATTEND A HEARING?
• The Presiding Tribunal Member(s)
• You, the Appellant
• Respondent(s) from the office that made the
original decision
• Any witnesses
• Any lawyers and legal or non-legal representatives• Interpreters – when required
http://www.sbt.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=121
Can you imagine the fallout if all OW and ODSP recipients had to pay $150 an hour to a paralegal or lawyer before they could get help?
For more stories go to http://welfarelegal.blogspot.com/
Ron Payne
Welfare Legal
Hamilton, Ontario
On page 2 of every Notice of Hearing the Tribunal now clearly states
Lawyers and Representatives (Legal and Non-Legal)
It is not necessary to have someone represent you at the hearing, but if you prefer representation, find a lawyer or other representative as soon as possible. Hearings will not be rescheduled because of delays in seeking assistance.
You must advise the Tribunal in writing of the name of your representative. Before the Tribunal can speak with your lawyer or other representative, you must give us written authorization. Until we receive authorization, we may only communicate with you about your appeal.
WHO MAY ATTEND A HEARING?
• The Presiding Tribunal Member(s)
• You, the Appellant
• Respondent(s) from the office that made the
original decision
• Any witnesses
• Any lawyers and legal or non-legal representatives• Interpreters – when required
http://www.sbt.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=121
Can you imagine the fallout if all OW and ODSP recipients had to pay $150 an hour to a paralegal or lawyer before they could get help?
For more stories go to http://welfarelegal.blogspot.com/
Ron Payne
Welfare Legal
Hamilton, Ontario
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Poverty's Smoke And Mirrors Part 2
Media Release
Poverty’s Smoke and Mirrors, Part 2
To see part 1 go to http://welfarelegal.blogspot.com/2008/09/who-is-really-committing-fraud-part-2.html
The article above went out to the main media and approximately 65 other print news media starting September 21 2008. It was also put on the World Wide Web.
To my knowledge it was only printed in 3 Ontario news papers in the Letters to the Editor section.
1) Hamilton’s, Mountain News
2) Hamilton’s, Stoney Creek News
3) London’s, The London Free Press
Thank you to these three papers for caring enough about people that live in poverty to print this article.
As of today November 05 2008 the Ontario government has only posted old outdated directives dated Sept 2001.
http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/mcss/english/pillars/social/directives/ow_policy_directives.html
Obviously these directives are of no use to anyone simply because of the fact they are outdated and the ministry is now using the July 2008 up to date directives but has not shared them with the public.
You may remember Welfare Legal was so offended by this abuse we offered $100.00 to anyone that could produce a copy of the latest Ontario Works directive 7.4.
As of this date no one has collected the $100.00. Welfare Legal now has a copy of the new directives that the government has not shared.
We take the position that this is the most serious kind of abuse by our government to implement new policies but not allow those most in need to have access to them. The only reason the government has given for this abuse is that the Ontario Government has not prepared a French version of these directives.
This is a Human Rights violation, among others, to implement a secrete version of the directives and not share them with the public and not to have a French version available.
As we have stated before the Ontario government has in fact been cutting the benefits of Ontario Works, (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program, (ODSP) recipients without letting the general public aware of these cuts.
The latest cuts that have become public are the cuts to benefits to grandparents that are caring for their own grandchildren, who many had, have been apprehended by the Children’s Aid Society (CAS). The grand parent’s complaints were heard loud and clear the government seems to have withdrawn these policy changes.
The new directive 7.4 and others shows more cuts that the public is not aware of yet.
One of these cuts shows that the Ontario government no longer supports volunteering here in Ontario. In the old outdated directives dated September 2001, the government used to give a small benefit to those recipients that had to do volunteer work as a condition of eligibility for OW. These cuts also affect those who wish to do volunteer work and are disabled on ODSP as well.
Are volunteers no longer needed here in Ontario?
These cuts which are ongoing, have been made to help pay for the meager increases to OW and ODSP of 2%. They are also part of the government’s bigger plan, to upload the cost of OW and ODSP from the municipality to the province and to pay for its poverty reduction strategy.
At the end of the day the government will save millions of dollars in benefits that the former Mike Harris Tories said people on OW and ODSP were entitled to. Does this make sense to anyone?
This story gets much, much worse. It turns out that the aboriginal community in Ontario had the foresight not to allow its members to be subjected to the policies and procedures put in place by the Mike Harris government, when they bought the draconian computer program from Anderson Consulting now Accenture. The cost of that program was $400 million and rising. This program was designed to cut people off of benefits automatically, with no human contact. There seems to be 2 classes of people being governed differently here, and what are the costs?
It would seem they were allowed to have their own computer program made up by a private company called AD Morrison.
http://www.admorrison.com/
A private professional researcher contacted Welfare Legal in an attempt to collect the $100.00 offered for the latest Ontario Works directive 7.4 and alerted us to a Pandora’s Box. You will see on the home page of AD Morrison’s site there is a link to “Latest Directives”. This link contained a third set of OW directives that was not available to the general public.
After Welfare Legal contacted the ministry to see if this in fact was the latest and new directive 7.4, the ministry contacted us with a reply that had nothing to do with our request. Then out of the blue this link was taken of the site.
After gathering all the evidence we soon learned that the Ontario government had not been keeping these new directive from the public since July 2008, they had in fact been hiding them starting in December 2005 and no one new about it. At least no one that has come forward so far.
There has been no response from any legal clinic or private paralegal in Ontario showing that they new about this breach of the Human Rights Code by our provincial government. If anyone was aware of this why didn’t they take it to the media? Does nobody care about this abuse? Does nobody care about eliminating poverty?
It is interesting to note that the government has even changed the directive numbers to confuse us even more once we were allowed to become aware of them.
September 2001 shows directive 31.0, the out dated benefits that we all are aware of.
December 2005 shows
7.3 is EMPLOYMENT AND PARTICIPATION BENEFITS
7.4 is COMMUNITY START UP AND MAINTENANCE BENEFIT
July 2008 shows
7.4 is EMPLOYMENT AND PARTICIPATION BENEFITS
7.5 is COMMUNITY START UP AND MAINTENANCE BENEFIT
For a copy of these directives
http://owcorruption.blogspot.com/
How can the Ontario government say it is attempting to alleviate poverty when it is secretly cutting the benefits of those most in need? (Reverse Robin Hood)
For more stories go to http://welfarelegal.blogspot.com/
Ron Payne
Welfare Legal
Hamilton, Ontario
Phone 905-253-0205
E-mail welfarelegal2004@hotmail.com
Blog http://welfarelegal.blogspot.com/
Poverty’s Smoke and Mirrors, Part 2
To see part 1 go to http://welfarelegal.blogspot.com/2008/09/who-is-really-committing-fraud-part-2.html
The article above went out to the main media and approximately 65 other print news media starting September 21 2008. It was also put on the World Wide Web.
To my knowledge it was only printed in 3 Ontario news papers in the Letters to the Editor section.
1) Hamilton’s, Mountain News
2) Hamilton’s, Stoney Creek News
3) London’s, The London Free Press
Thank you to these three papers for caring enough about people that live in poverty to print this article.
As of today November 05 2008 the Ontario government has only posted old outdated directives dated Sept 2001.
http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/mcss/english/pillars/social/directives/ow_policy_directives.html
Obviously these directives are of no use to anyone simply because of the fact they are outdated and the ministry is now using the July 2008 up to date directives but has not shared them with the public.
You may remember Welfare Legal was so offended by this abuse we offered $100.00 to anyone that could produce a copy of the latest Ontario Works directive 7.4.
As of this date no one has collected the $100.00. Welfare Legal now has a copy of the new directives that the government has not shared.
We take the position that this is the most serious kind of abuse by our government to implement new policies but not allow those most in need to have access to them. The only reason the government has given for this abuse is that the Ontario Government has not prepared a French version of these directives.
This is a Human Rights violation, among others, to implement a secrete version of the directives and not share them with the public and not to have a French version available.
As we have stated before the Ontario government has in fact been cutting the benefits of Ontario Works, (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program, (ODSP) recipients without letting the general public aware of these cuts.
The latest cuts that have become public are the cuts to benefits to grandparents that are caring for their own grandchildren, who many had, have been apprehended by the Children’s Aid Society (CAS). The grand parent’s complaints were heard loud and clear the government seems to have withdrawn these policy changes.
The new directive 7.4 and others shows more cuts that the public is not aware of yet.
One of these cuts shows that the Ontario government no longer supports volunteering here in Ontario. In the old outdated directives dated September 2001, the government used to give a small benefit to those recipients that had to do volunteer work as a condition of eligibility for OW. These cuts also affect those who wish to do volunteer work and are disabled on ODSP as well.
Are volunteers no longer needed here in Ontario?
These cuts which are ongoing, have been made to help pay for the meager increases to OW and ODSP of 2%. They are also part of the government’s bigger plan, to upload the cost of OW and ODSP from the municipality to the province and to pay for its poverty reduction strategy.
At the end of the day the government will save millions of dollars in benefits that the former Mike Harris Tories said people on OW and ODSP were entitled to. Does this make sense to anyone?
This story gets much, much worse. It turns out that the aboriginal community in Ontario had the foresight not to allow its members to be subjected to the policies and procedures put in place by the Mike Harris government, when they bought the draconian computer program from Anderson Consulting now Accenture. The cost of that program was $400 million and rising. This program was designed to cut people off of benefits automatically, with no human contact. There seems to be 2 classes of people being governed differently here, and what are the costs?
It would seem they were allowed to have their own computer program made up by a private company called AD Morrison.
http://www.admorrison.com/
A private professional researcher contacted Welfare Legal in an attempt to collect the $100.00 offered for the latest Ontario Works directive 7.4 and alerted us to a Pandora’s Box. You will see on the home page of AD Morrison’s site there is a link to “Latest Directives”. This link contained a third set of OW directives that was not available to the general public.
After Welfare Legal contacted the ministry to see if this in fact was the latest and new directive 7.4, the ministry contacted us with a reply that had nothing to do with our request. Then out of the blue this link was taken of the site.
After gathering all the evidence we soon learned that the Ontario government had not been keeping these new directive from the public since July 2008, they had in fact been hiding them starting in December 2005 and no one new about it. At least no one that has come forward so far.
There has been no response from any legal clinic or private paralegal in Ontario showing that they new about this breach of the Human Rights Code by our provincial government. If anyone was aware of this why didn’t they take it to the media? Does nobody care about this abuse? Does nobody care about eliminating poverty?
It is interesting to note that the government has even changed the directive numbers to confuse us even more once we were allowed to become aware of them.
September 2001 shows directive 31.0, the out dated benefits that we all are aware of.
December 2005 shows
7.3 is EMPLOYMENT AND PARTICIPATION BENEFITS
7.4 is COMMUNITY START UP AND MAINTENANCE BENEFIT
July 2008 shows
7.4 is EMPLOYMENT AND PARTICIPATION BENEFITS
7.5 is COMMUNITY START UP AND MAINTENANCE BENEFIT
For a copy of these directives
http://owcorruption.blogspot.com/
How can the Ontario government say it is attempting to alleviate poverty when it is secretly cutting the benefits of those most in need? (Reverse Robin Hood)
For more stories go to http://welfarelegal.blogspot.com/
Ron Payne
Welfare Legal
Hamilton, Ontario
Phone 905-253-0205
E-mail welfarelegal2004@hotmail.com
Blog http://welfarelegal.blogspot.com/
Sunday, September 28, 2008
The new Ontario Works Directive 7.4
The New Ontario Works Directive 7.4
DIRECTIVE #7.4: COMMUNITY START UP AND MAINTENANCE BENEFIT
SUMMARY OF POLICY
Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB) is a mandatory benefit
which may be issued to recipients who meet the eligibility criteria for the benefit.
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
Sections 2 and 8 of the Act.
Section 55(1) of Regulation 134/98.
SUMMARY OF DIRECTIVE
This directive describes the Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit and
the situations in which it is provided.
INTENT OF POLICY
To ensure that the Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit is issued to
eligible recipients taking exceptional circumstances into consideration where they
exist.
APPLICATION OF POLICY
The Community Start up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB) is a mandatory
benefit provided to recipients to assist in establishing a new principal residence,
or to prevent eviction or the discontinuance of utilities or heating in an existing
residence.
The amount of the CSUMB payable, as determined by the Administrator, is up to
a maximum of $1500 for recipients with dependent children, or up to a maximum
of $799 for all other recipients, in a 24-month period.
The approved amount is based on verifiable costs which in the Administrator’s
opinion are necessary to establish a permanent residence in the community or to
maintain an existing residence, or maintain utilities.
Costs must be visually verified and documented in the SDMT. First Nations
should visually verify and document costs using their respective computer
technology or manually on the recipient’s file.
ONTARIO WORKS
COMMUNITY START UP AND MAINTENANCE DIR 7.4 - 2 DECEMBER 2005
Each recipient's request for the CSUMB is reviewed on its own merit in light of the
policy intent. CSUMB is provided only where the needs have been identified and
where no other funds are available.
The payment of assistance for a rent deposit or utility deposit is made directly to
the landlord or utility company. The delivery agent can provide full or partial
payment prior to the date of departure from the previous place of residence (e.g.
rent deposit).
The CSUMB can be paid in more than one sum. The benefit may be paid in
separate amounts provided it covers only one "start up" event and does not
exceed the maximum amounts.
The Administrator may approve additional payments if there are exceptional
circumstances.
Eligibility Criteria
CSUMB is issued in situations where the recipient:
• meets the eligibility criteria; and
• within the preceding 24 months has not received the maximum amount of the
CSUMB to which the recipient is entitled under Ontario Works or the Ontario
Disability Support Program (ODSP).
Establishing a New Principal Residence
Criteria
In the case of establishing a new principal residence, the eligibility criteria are:
• the recipient will be establishing a new principal residence whether within or
outside the geographic area;
• the Administrator is satisfied that the recipient will need financial assistance to
establish the new principal residence; and
• the recipient meets one of the following criteria:
o is being discharged from an institution that provided for their basic needs
and shelter;
ONTARIO WORKS
COMMUNITY START UP AND MAINTENANCE DIR 7.4 - 3 DECEMBER 2005
o has satisfied the Administrator that it would be harmful to their health or
welfare to remain in their current residence; or
o has been evicted from their current residence
Allowable Start up Situations
In “start up” situations, the need for the recipient to leave their residence is clearly
identified and documented, and a reasonable plan is in place.
The "start up" event must occur within one month from the date of application for
assistance or the establishment of a new principal residence. CSUMB covers a
move into boarding or rental accommodation, not a per diem funded residence or
group home.
The benefit is provided for:
• victims of family violence, including spousal or child abuse;
• persons who are homeless;
• uninhabitable premises (where the uninhabitable conditions are not clearly
evident, verification is sought from a third party, e.g. a building or health
inspector or physician);
• a move out of the home where the need has been clearly established, for
example:
o a disabled person moving because of the incapacity or death of
supporting, care-giving family member(s);
o overcrowding condition within the premises;
o children and sole-support parents where there is documented need for
them to relocate;
o faced with eviction from their premises;
o persons needing to move for reasons of employment or training; or
o a move to more affordable accommodations, e.g. situations in which an
applicant or recipient was experiencing undue hardship because of
extreme shelter costs; and
ONTARIO WORKS
COMMUNITY START UP AND MAINTENANCE DIR 7.4 - 4 DECEMBER 2005
• persons being discharged from institutions such as:
o correctional facilities
o hospitals
o hostels
o nursing homes
o special care homes
o interval and transition homes
Allowable Start up Costs
Examples of the cost of establishing a new residence in the community include:
• clothing
• fuel and hydro deposits
• household furnishings
• last month's rent deposit
• moving and transportation to the home of the recipient
• any other costs approved by the Administrator
Recipient Moving to a Different Delivery Site
If a recipient is moving from one delivery site to another, the regular practice is to
issue the CSUMB from the delivery site which the recipient is leaving. This
enables the recipient to more easily establish an address in the new community.
This includes situations in which the Administrator is already aware of the need
and arrangements that are necessary for the recipient to relocate to another
community. A pay direct to the landlord is made for the rental portion.
There may be situations in which the new delivery site needs to issue the
CSUMB. For example, a recipient has left in an emergency and is already in the
geographic area of the new delivery site.
Emergencies might include, but are not limited to, cases of family violence or
reasons involving health-related matters. A recipient may require immediate funds
for last month's rent from the outgoing delivery site, then require further access to
the CSUMB for other demonstrated needs from the new delivery site.
Under no circumstances is the recipient to be asked to return to the previous
community to access the CSUMB. Unusual situations are discussed with the
Administrator.
ONTARIO WORKS
COMMUNITY START UP AND MAINTENANCE DIR 7.4 - 5 DECEMBER 2005
Maintaining an Existing Residence
Criteria
In the case of maintaining an existing residence, the eligibility criteria are:
• the recipient will be remaining in their current residence;
• the Administrator is satisfied that the recipient will need financial assistance to
remain in their current residence; and
• the recipient meets one of the following criteria:
o has received an eviction notice and has satisfied the Administrator that, if a
payment is made, there will be no evictions;
o has had a utility or the heating to the current residence cut off and has
satisfied the Administrator that if a payment is made the service will be
reconnected; or
o has received a notice that a utility or the heating to the current residence
will be cut off and has satisfied the Administrator that if a payment is made
the service will not be discontinued.
Utilities include water and sewage, rental of furnaces and water heaters, and
hook-up or reconnection charges for a utility. Heating is considered separate from
utilities.
The total amount of additional payments cannot exceed an amount of $1500 for
recipients with dependent children or $799 for all other recipients. The CSUMB
can be issued as many times as is required under exceptional circumstances.
Exceptional Circumstances
Generally, the CSUMB is approved for a recipient only once in a twenty-four
month period. However, there may be situations in which there is a need to assist
more than once within the twenty-four month time frame.
The following are considered exceptional circumstances:
• the necessity to relocate as a result of a catastrophic event (e.g. flood, fire)
• the necessity to relocate as a result of domestic violence
ONTARIO WORKS
COMMUNITY START UP AND MAINTENANCE DIR 7.4 - 6 DECEMBER 2005
For more stories go to http://welfarelegal.blogspot.com/
DIRECTIVE #7.4: COMMUNITY START UP AND MAINTENANCE BENEFIT
SUMMARY OF POLICY
Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB) is a mandatory benefit
which may be issued to recipients who meet the eligibility criteria for the benefit.
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
Sections 2 and 8 of the Act.
Section 55(1) of Regulation 134/98.
SUMMARY OF DIRECTIVE
This directive describes the Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit and
the situations in which it is provided.
INTENT OF POLICY
To ensure that the Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit is issued to
eligible recipients taking exceptional circumstances into consideration where they
exist.
APPLICATION OF POLICY
The Community Start up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB) is a mandatory
benefit provided to recipients to assist in establishing a new principal residence,
or to prevent eviction or the discontinuance of utilities or heating in an existing
residence.
The amount of the CSUMB payable, as determined by the Administrator, is up to
a maximum of $1500 for recipients with dependent children, or up to a maximum
of $799 for all other recipients, in a 24-month period.
The approved amount is based on verifiable costs which in the Administrator’s
opinion are necessary to establish a permanent residence in the community or to
maintain an existing residence, or maintain utilities.
Costs must be visually verified and documented in the SDMT. First Nations
should visually verify and document costs using their respective computer
technology or manually on the recipient’s file.
ONTARIO WORKS
COMMUNITY START UP AND MAINTENANCE DIR 7.4 - 2 DECEMBER 2005
Each recipient's request for the CSUMB is reviewed on its own merit in light of the
policy intent. CSUMB is provided only where the needs have been identified and
where no other funds are available.
The payment of assistance for a rent deposit or utility deposit is made directly to
the landlord or utility company. The delivery agent can provide full or partial
payment prior to the date of departure from the previous place of residence (e.g.
rent deposit).
The CSUMB can be paid in more than one sum. The benefit may be paid in
separate amounts provided it covers only one "start up" event and does not
exceed the maximum amounts.
The Administrator may approve additional payments if there are exceptional
circumstances.
Eligibility Criteria
CSUMB is issued in situations where the recipient:
• meets the eligibility criteria; and
• within the preceding 24 months has not received the maximum amount of the
CSUMB to which the recipient is entitled under Ontario Works or the Ontario
Disability Support Program (ODSP).
Establishing a New Principal Residence
Criteria
In the case of establishing a new principal residence, the eligibility criteria are:
• the recipient will be establishing a new principal residence whether within or
outside the geographic area;
• the Administrator is satisfied that the recipient will need financial assistance to
establish the new principal residence; and
• the recipient meets one of the following criteria:
o is being discharged from an institution that provided for their basic needs
and shelter;
ONTARIO WORKS
COMMUNITY START UP AND MAINTENANCE DIR 7.4 - 3 DECEMBER 2005
o has satisfied the Administrator that it would be harmful to their health or
welfare to remain in their current residence; or
o has been evicted from their current residence
Allowable Start up Situations
In “start up” situations, the need for the recipient to leave their residence is clearly
identified and documented, and a reasonable plan is in place.
The "start up" event must occur within one month from the date of application for
assistance or the establishment of a new principal residence. CSUMB covers a
move into boarding or rental accommodation, not a per diem funded residence or
group home.
The benefit is provided for:
• victims of family violence, including spousal or child abuse;
• persons who are homeless;
• uninhabitable premises (where the uninhabitable conditions are not clearly
evident, verification is sought from a third party, e.g. a building or health
inspector or physician);
• a move out of the home where the need has been clearly established, for
example:
o a disabled person moving because of the incapacity or death of
supporting, care-giving family member(s);
o overcrowding condition within the premises;
o children and sole-support parents where there is documented need for
them to relocate;
o faced with eviction from their premises;
o persons needing to move for reasons of employment or training; or
o a move to more affordable accommodations, e.g. situations in which an
applicant or recipient was experiencing undue hardship because of
extreme shelter costs; and
ONTARIO WORKS
COMMUNITY START UP AND MAINTENANCE DIR 7.4 - 4 DECEMBER 2005
• persons being discharged from institutions such as:
o correctional facilities
o hospitals
o hostels
o nursing homes
o special care homes
o interval and transition homes
Allowable Start up Costs
Examples of the cost of establishing a new residence in the community include:
• clothing
• fuel and hydro deposits
• household furnishings
• last month's rent deposit
• moving and transportation to the home of the recipient
• any other costs approved by the Administrator
Recipient Moving to a Different Delivery Site
If a recipient is moving from one delivery site to another, the regular practice is to
issue the CSUMB from the delivery site which the recipient is leaving. This
enables the recipient to more easily establish an address in the new community.
This includes situations in which the Administrator is already aware of the need
and arrangements that are necessary for the recipient to relocate to another
community. A pay direct to the landlord is made for the rental portion.
There may be situations in which the new delivery site needs to issue the
CSUMB. For example, a recipient has left in an emergency and is already in the
geographic area of the new delivery site.
Emergencies might include, but are not limited to, cases of family violence or
reasons involving health-related matters. A recipient may require immediate funds
for last month's rent from the outgoing delivery site, then require further access to
the CSUMB for other demonstrated needs from the new delivery site.
Under no circumstances is the recipient to be asked to return to the previous
community to access the CSUMB. Unusual situations are discussed with the
Administrator.
ONTARIO WORKS
COMMUNITY START UP AND MAINTENANCE DIR 7.4 - 5 DECEMBER 2005
Maintaining an Existing Residence
Criteria
In the case of maintaining an existing residence, the eligibility criteria are:
• the recipient will be remaining in their current residence;
• the Administrator is satisfied that the recipient will need financial assistance to
remain in their current residence; and
• the recipient meets one of the following criteria:
o has received an eviction notice and has satisfied the Administrator that, if a
payment is made, there will be no evictions;
o has had a utility or the heating to the current residence cut off and has
satisfied the Administrator that if a payment is made the service will be
reconnected; or
o has received a notice that a utility or the heating to the current residence
will be cut off and has satisfied the Administrator that if a payment is made
the service will not be discontinued.
Utilities include water and sewage, rental of furnaces and water heaters, and
hook-up or reconnection charges for a utility. Heating is considered separate from
utilities.
The total amount of additional payments cannot exceed an amount of $1500 for
recipients with dependent children or $799 for all other recipients. The CSUMB
can be issued as many times as is required under exceptional circumstances.
Exceptional Circumstances
Generally, the CSUMB is approved for a recipient only once in a twenty-four
month period. However, there may be situations in which there is a need to assist
more than once within the twenty-four month time frame.
The following are considered exceptional circumstances:
• the necessity to relocate as a result of a catastrophic event (e.g. flood, fire)
• the necessity to relocate as a result of domestic violence
ONTARIO WORKS
COMMUNITY START UP AND MAINTENANCE DIR 7.4 - 6 DECEMBER 2005
For more stories go to http://welfarelegal.blogspot.com/
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Poverty's Smoke and mirrors, Part 1
This was sent to the main media on Sept 22 2008
Regarding Premier McGinty recently suggesting that the public’s expectations for a comprehensive plan for poverty reduction may have to be tempered as a result of the bleak economic outlook for the province.
In my opinion the provincial government’s resent poverty reduction consultations, headed by M.P.P. Deb Matthews was all smoke and mirrors, a sham.
The Liberals have known for some time that there may be a downturn in the economy and have been looking for ways of saving money for some time now.
The Mike Harris Conservative government did this, years ago when it gutted funding for welfare, education and medical care, and then paid a heavy price for doing so.
Now, on the welfare front the Liberals are continuing the process, only this time they are doing it without the vast majority of the public’s knowledge.
How will they do this? I’ll explain. First they had to accomplish two things.
a) get a lot of good media attention showing what a wonderful job they are doing on poverty reduction.
They announced a huge new initiative, an across Ontario poverty reduction consultation. They mistakenly let the cat out of the bag right from the beginning, no new money and no one that lives in poverty is invited. That was a bad move (showing there hand) that caused a reasonable amount of bad publicity. People quickly forgot this error and things moved along.
b) prepare the service providers for an onslaught of people needing help.
The Liberals had to make the service providers think that they were the ones that were going to lead the charge of helping to eliminate poverty. This way they couldn’t complain that the Liberals weren’t doing enough when things got worse.
Well things are definitely getting worse for people living on Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). Not because of the alleged economic downturn Premier McGinty is talking about.
It’s the cuts the Liberals have already made to the benefits of welfare and disabled recipients. These cuts are already being implemented through the Ontario Works offices.
Behind closed doors and behind every ones back, the Liberals have completely redone the Ontario Works Policy Directives. These are documents that explain what the benefits are and how to apply for them.
My research, that was done here in Hamilton, shows that the local legal clinics and paralegal community are not aware of these changes and are in fact giving out wrong legal advice to their clients. Why haven’t the legal clinics community stepped up to the plate on this issue?
Even our local library was not aware of these changes. You would have to be a pretty good researcher to even find a hint of these changes on the Internet.
Now the vast majority of people living in poverty will have no idea what the benefits that they are entitled to and how to apply for them.
The provincial Liberals have already started to skim millions of dollars off of Ontario’s poor and disabled without anyone knowing that it is happening.
The implementation of these policy changes is certainly a clear example of the provincial government acting in bad faith. Especially when you take into consideration the fact that Welfare Legal has requested in writing twice for the government to supply us with a copy of these changes and has been told no.
Welfare Legal’s evidence is clear.
We have;
a) 2 separate documents on Ontario Works letterhead that talks about these secret policy changes.
b) 2 separate e-mails from our local legal clinics that show they are not aware of these policy changes.
c) A letter from the province saying they will not give us a copy of this new policies that they are in fact using as we speak.
Why isn’t someone somewhere doing something about this abuse of process by the province and the local municipalities that administrate the Ontario Works Program? Many heads should roll over this issue and I cannot believe I am the only one talking about it publicly. It is a complete failure of system that was designed to help not hurt people that live in poverty.
Welfare Legal is offering $100.00 to the first person that e-mails us a copy of the new Ontario Works Directive #7.4. This offer is only good for seven days after this letter goes public. The sender will have to prove the document is authentic.
For more stories go to http://welfarelegal.blogspot.com/
Ron Payne
Welfare Legal
Hamilton, Ontario
E-mail welfarelegal2004@hotmail.com
Regarding Premier McGinty recently suggesting that the public’s expectations for a comprehensive plan for poverty reduction may have to be tempered as a result of the bleak economic outlook for the province.
In my opinion the provincial government’s resent poverty reduction consultations, headed by M.P.P. Deb Matthews was all smoke and mirrors, a sham.
The Liberals have known for some time that there may be a downturn in the economy and have been looking for ways of saving money for some time now.
The Mike Harris Conservative government did this, years ago when it gutted funding for welfare, education and medical care, and then paid a heavy price for doing so.
Now, on the welfare front the Liberals are continuing the process, only this time they are doing it without the vast majority of the public’s knowledge.
How will they do this? I’ll explain. First they had to accomplish two things.
a) get a lot of good media attention showing what a wonderful job they are doing on poverty reduction.
They announced a huge new initiative, an across Ontario poverty reduction consultation. They mistakenly let the cat out of the bag right from the beginning, no new money and no one that lives in poverty is invited. That was a bad move (showing there hand) that caused a reasonable amount of bad publicity. People quickly forgot this error and things moved along.
b) prepare the service providers for an onslaught of people needing help.
The Liberals had to make the service providers think that they were the ones that were going to lead the charge of helping to eliminate poverty. This way they couldn’t complain that the Liberals weren’t doing enough when things got worse.
Well things are definitely getting worse for people living on Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). Not because of the alleged economic downturn Premier McGinty is talking about.
It’s the cuts the Liberals have already made to the benefits of welfare and disabled recipients. These cuts are already being implemented through the Ontario Works offices.
Behind closed doors and behind every ones back, the Liberals have completely redone the Ontario Works Policy Directives. These are documents that explain what the benefits are and how to apply for them.
My research, that was done here in Hamilton, shows that the local legal clinics and paralegal community are not aware of these changes and are in fact giving out wrong legal advice to their clients. Why haven’t the legal clinics community stepped up to the plate on this issue?
Even our local library was not aware of these changes. You would have to be a pretty good researcher to even find a hint of these changes on the Internet.
Now the vast majority of people living in poverty will have no idea what the benefits that they are entitled to and how to apply for them.
The provincial Liberals have already started to skim millions of dollars off of Ontario’s poor and disabled without anyone knowing that it is happening.
The implementation of these policy changes is certainly a clear example of the provincial government acting in bad faith. Especially when you take into consideration the fact that Welfare Legal has requested in writing twice for the government to supply us with a copy of these changes and has been told no.
Welfare Legal’s evidence is clear.
We have;
a) 2 separate documents on Ontario Works letterhead that talks about these secret policy changes.
b) 2 separate e-mails from our local legal clinics that show they are not aware of these policy changes.
c) A letter from the province saying they will not give us a copy of this new policies that they are in fact using as we speak.
Why isn’t someone somewhere doing something about this abuse of process by the province and the local municipalities that administrate the Ontario Works Program? Many heads should roll over this issue and I cannot believe I am the only one talking about it publicly. It is a complete failure of system that was designed to help not hurt people that live in poverty.
Welfare Legal is offering $100.00 to the first person that e-mails us a copy of the new Ontario Works Directive #7.4. This offer is only good for seven days after this letter goes public. The sender will have to prove the document is authentic.
For more stories go to http://welfarelegal.blogspot.com/
Ron Payne
Welfare Legal
Hamilton, Ontario
E-mail welfarelegal2004@hotmail.com
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
The Legal Clinic system in Ontario needs adjustment
Association of Community Legal Clinics of Ontario (ACLCO) Lenny Abramowicz,
We say
This needs to be fixed immediately.
The system could be held for discrimination (Duty to accommodate)
He said
Allow me to make a brief comment about money. It is undeniable that more money would help solve some of these problems. It is also undeniable that, considering the need, there is nowhere near enough money being spent on poverty law services in Ontario. The demand for our services is insatiable and it is depressing and demoralizing to all of us to have to turn away or provide only limited services to so many. It is also undeniable that the government has the resources to meet these needs, but chooses to spend most of it in other places: in other areas of the justice sector, such as high profile prosecutions of alleged terrorists and gang members, or on significant salary increases for crown lawyers, judges and tribunal members.
We say
The clinic system here in Ontario spends thousands of man hours year after year holding and speaking at public events. Putting this information on the Internet once and for all to see would free up lawyers time and have a major impact on helping the people that the system was designed to help in the first place.
He said
We must also find a better way to share the information and knowledge that exists in the clinic system. Our colleague, Kevin Smith at Parkdale often says, "there does not exist a single problem confronting a clinic that some other clinic hasn’t already dealt with". I think he is right. We are pretty good at sharing our substantive legal information, but not as well in other areas such as management and administration. The problem is that too often we are each left to figure out the solution on our own, sometimes reinventing the wheel 80 times over. We must find better ways to share the tremendous wealth of knowledge that exists in our 80 clinics.
Executive Director
(Speech at Southwest regional training – April 11, 2008)
He said
Although clinics will never be able to help every person who is in need, it is unquestioned that we would like to be able to help more than we are helping now. Overall, clinics are not as accessible as we would like to be. And we are particularly not as accessible towards certain groups: those with physical or mental disabilities, those who don’t speak English as their first language, and those who live in rural and remote areas. There are particular challenges involved in providing services to those groups. (Fortunately, the ACLCO and clinics are presently working with the Law Foundation who have initiated a project on accessibility issues.)
(Speech at Southwest regional training – April 11, 2008)
He said
Although clinics will never be able to help every person who is in need, it is unquestioned that we would like to be able to help more than we are helping now. Overall, clinics are not as accessible as we would like to be. And we are particularly not as accessible towards certain groups: those with physical or mental disabilities, those who don’t speak English as their first language, and those who live in rural and remote areas. There are particular challenges involved in providing services to those groups. (Fortunately, the ACLCO and clinics are presently working with the Law Foundation who have initiated a project on accessibility issues.)
We say
This needs to be fixed immediately.
The system could be held for discrimination (Duty to accommodate)
He said
Allow me to make a brief comment about money. It is undeniable that more money would help solve some of these problems. It is also undeniable that, considering the need, there is nowhere near enough money being spent on poverty law services in Ontario. The demand for our services is insatiable and it is depressing and demoralizing to all of us to have to turn away or provide only limited services to so many. It is also undeniable that the government has the resources to meet these needs, but chooses to spend most of it in other places: in other areas of the justice sector, such as high profile prosecutions of alleged terrorists and gang members, or on significant salary increases for crown lawyers, judges and tribunal members.
We say
The clinic system here in Ontario spends thousands of man hours year after year holding and speaking at public events. Putting this information on the Internet once and for all to see would free up lawyers time and have a major impact on helping the people that the system was designed to help in the first place.
He said
We must also find a better way to share the information and knowledge that exists in the clinic system. Our colleague, Kevin Smith at Parkdale often says, "there does not exist a single problem confronting a clinic that some other clinic hasn’t already dealt with". I think he is right. We are pretty good at sharing our substantive legal information, but not as well in other areas such as management and administration. The problem is that too often we are each left to figure out the solution on our own, sometimes reinventing the wheel 80 times over. We must find better ways to share the tremendous wealth of knowledge that exists in our 80 clinics.
We say
The clinic system must have a internet data base for main tribunal decisions that the general public would have access to. They already have this information but keep it to them selves. This would not be expensive to do and would have major saving in wasted Tribunal time.
For more stories go to http://welfarelegal.blogspot.com/
Ron Payne
Welfare Legal
Hamilton, Ontario
E-mail welfarelegal2004@hotmail.com
It's still corruption and bad faith at OW and ODSP
Did anybody including Deb Matthews comment on the huge waste of resources being spent by the legal clinic system and the Social Benefits Tribunal. Of coarse this is no fault of the tribunal itself as long as it has been screaming bloody murder to the appropriate ministries.
Our research shows that if anyone applying for anything to do with ODSP and is denied, all they have to do is attend a SBT hearing with representation and the tribunal will overturn that denial 80.70% of the time. This means that when government workers make a decision they are wrong 4 out of ever 5 times.
This is corruption, this is bad faith, this is willful blindness or willful deceit.
I will now describe a very aggravating factor. If that same person, under the same circumstances, goes without representation, the tribunal will overturn that denial 72.68% of the time.
This would suggest that the legal clinics are only of value just under 8% of the time regarding wrong decisions that are overturned.
Allowing this to continue prevents Ontario Works recipients from accessing justice the vast majority of times simply because there is nowhere to go for legal help or information.
If there is going to be any real attempt at reducing poverty using existing resources this matter would have to be one the top 3 items to be looked at.
Ron Payne
Welfare Legal
Hamilton, Ontario
E-mail welfarelegal2004@hotmail.com
Our research shows that if anyone applying for anything to do with ODSP and is denied, all they have to do is attend a SBT hearing with representation and the tribunal will overturn that denial 80.70% of the time. This means that when government workers make a decision they are wrong 4 out of ever 5 times.
This is corruption, this is bad faith, this is willful blindness or willful deceit.
I will now describe a very aggravating factor. If that same person, under the same circumstances, goes without representation, the tribunal will overturn that denial 72.68% of the time.
This would suggest that the legal clinics are only of value just under 8% of the time regarding wrong decisions that are overturned.
Allowing this to continue prevents Ontario Works recipients from accessing justice the vast majority of times simply because there is nowhere to go for legal help or information.
If there is going to be any real attempt at reducing poverty using existing resources this matter would have to be one the top 3 items to be looked at.
Ron Payne
Welfare Legal
Hamilton, Ontario
E-mail welfarelegal2004@hotmail.com
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The corruption of the 500,000 missing Welfare Recipients
Ontario Works (The Truth Part 2)
Missing Ontario Works Recipients
What happened to an estimated 500,000 + people that left the welfare rolls since Mike Harris and his Tory’s came into power? A select group of people have a good idea but where is all the proof. Their has been very little research done on the issue and the general population is not aware of the facts about the real fraud of Ontario Works and the people who need this kind of help. We need to educate.
http://www.socialwork.utoronto.ca/fsw/fswsupport/sane/doc/herd_rhetoric.pdf
The computer program that the Tory’s bought from that USA company Anderson Consulting now Accenture was broken when they bought it. The widely documented and highly publicized, internet is full of evidence that shows Anderson/Accenture has been sued all over the world because these programs just didn’t work properly. The 64 000 dollar question is did the Tory’s know this at the time. It would be extremely unlikely that the Tory’s would have signed a then estimated $135.5 million contract with a company from another country without doing a simple check of the company’s record.
http://www.computerworld.com/careertopics/careers/consulting/story/0,10801,94951,00.html
In a 2001 document the costs for this computer program was 400 million dollars and counting. I wonder how much it is today?
http://cupe.ca/PrivatizationSocialServices/accenturefactsheet
Well common sense tells us that this “check” was done so why did the Tories buy it? It was money. Millions of dollars would be taken away from single mothers, children, men and women alike. This would be accomplished very quickly with Anderson/Accenture’s contract, policies and computer program. The Conservatives (The Mike Harris, Tory government) simply and overnight established 800 hundred new rules governing eligibility for welfare payments for the sole purpose of reducing caseloads (savings).
The one case below among many outstanding ones out there today, has been fully documented with audio tape recordings of various meetings with Ontario Works staff myself and a friend, turned client, a single mother, who just wanted to get an education and then a job so she could give her 12 year old son a better life.
The hard proof research shows that this is not the exception, “It’s The Rule”.
Case in point
For the past few years I have been doing advocacy and research relating to Bad Faith at Ontario Works and ODSP and this is just a small part of one example of many that the Harris Conservative government purposefully allowed to happen to the most vulnerable and unequipped in society.
On June 25 2004 at 9:05AM I made an official complaint to a Hamilton’s Ontario Works manager. I informed him that a client of mine file was missing and that I allege that the reason she was missing was because of corruption (Bad Faith) in the City of Hamilton at his Ontario Works (OW) office.
This single 45 year old mother from Poland and her 12 year old son had been harassed and abused systemically by OW workers for years. I know this because I was there, with her, taping the interviews, and making copies of all the documentation regarding her experience with Ontario Works. The information gathered is absolutely unbelievable, considering that they did this right in front of me, an external witness to the fact.
Various and yet numerous attempts by administration to extort money out of her illegally through alleged overpayments that the computer wrongly and illogically printed out. Remember the broken computer program the Tory’s bought from Anderson/Accenture. She had to be on the ball and ready to quickly appeal the many alleged overpayments, suspensions, cancellations and bad decisions from Ontario Works relating to her and her son’s eligibility.
The majority of OW recipients that had reported these errors said they didn’t know how to navigate the very complicated legal appeal process and is having to pay back money they in fact didn’t owe.
Making appointments in writing for 2pm and when our arrival 10 minutes early, we find out from Ontario Works her benefits have been suspended because she didn't show up at 9am, we were forced to appeal, (save your documents people) the letter by the administration said 2pm. One appointment the worker never showed up at all. They said they phoned her 20 minutes before the meeting time to say the meeting was canceled. It was a 4 mile walk from her home to the welfare office as she didn’t have any money for the bus.
Sometimes OW would call her in every two months. She was going to school full time and had to take time off. They would ask her to bring in her school attendance records all the time even though they already had this information. OW had already got this information by using the Consent to Disclose and Verify Information form that all OW and ODSP recipients are required to sign that allows workers to get information from anybody regarding the client and/or spouse and/or children.
The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia found this type of document is an intrusion of ones privacy and is illegal.
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=Glasgow+v.+Nova+Scotia+&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/ns/nssc/doc/1999/1999canlii2328/1999canlii2328.html
Making her walk 3½ to 4 miles one way to school all year round while a Ontario Works supervisor purposefully and in bad faith denied the existence of a buss pass to go to school. The same supervisor purposefully denied the existence of a buss pass and start-up allowance to do volunteer work. This lady was not sitting around doing nothing.
I did a survey of people that attended an ODSP forum sponsored by a Hamilton Legal Clinic, which I was a guest speaker at and 70% of the social workers that attended didn't know that the bus pass benefit even existed. Finally, the supervisor admitted her acts of bad faith, when I asked her in front of industry workers and legal clinic lawyers if Ontario works supplies these mandatory benefits. She had to say yes, she couldn’t lie in front of them. She certainly did not have conscience in any problem lying to my clients, even right in front of me.
Some supervisors routinely lie and give faults information to OW staff and OW clients.
Another part of that survey showed that 90% of the social workers didn’t know that if a Legal Clinic in Ontario refused to assist an Ontario Works or ODSP client the client could then get a Legal Aid Certificate and hire a their own lawyer.
What about the client? Routinely requests for benefits were mostly denied or ignored by Ontario Works workers and supervisors. One of the many resulting Internal Review requests was denied, in writing because a decision was never made, therefore she can't have an Internal Review. They also wrote that the request she is asking for was a discretionary benefit and cannot be appealed. (WRONG) It was clearly a mandatory benefit and can be appealed
Then to the horror after appealing to the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) anyway, the Tribunal lost her appeal documentation, the file just got up and walked away. Now the SBT says too much time has passed and she cannot appeal (WRONG). All this happened while she was still walking to school summer and winter. Her legs and back were very sore. This and all of the intense stress caused by the Tribunal and the Ontario Works staffs acting in bad faith are well documented in her medical file.
One OW supervisor threw us out of her office the second she found out who my client was. She was the one that had appealed all those faulty overpayments and made Ontario Works and its computer program look like a total fraud. We went there with an appointment to report the corruption of OW denying the existence of the mandatory, bus pass and volunteer benefits.
Finally after all that, we again asked another worker a for the bus pass. This worker had previously denied the existence of the benefit and low and behold and without the usual step of asking the supervisor the worker granted the mandatory bus pass benefit.
“This took almost two years to get and finally happened two months before she and her son went missing.”
Another of her assigned workers threw us out of her office, illegally suspending her benefits, when I refused to give the worker my last name. Then her worker fabricated evidence in writing as to why the meeting ended. The complaint process which is incredibly not a written policy in Hamilton was totally ignored by this worker when I asked her to get us a supervisor to deal with this corruption.
“The systemic policies allow workers to interpret the laws individually and when they have to fix their mistakes they are able to do so deceitfully and with immunity. The system very rarely admits to its mistakes.”
Then the city of Hamilton tried to cover the incident up by not giving any of the requested relevant full disclosure documentation when we asked for it in a Freedom of Information Act request. The suspension had to be appealed. The city only gave us half of the documented evidence that didn’t show the workers fabricated part. My client and I were in the process of swearing out affidavits that totally contradicted the workers fabricated written evidence. The city finally gave us a copy of the whole document only after I threatened to appeal and expose the corruption and acts of bad faith.
“The evidence is called narrative notes. These notes are prescribed by law and are legal documents. The notes are made by workers explaining any contact with a client and/or work done in the clients file and must be written within 24 hours from the time of the contact.”
This issue of abuse, harassment and Ontario Works acting in bad faith is amplified by the fact Ontario Works workers are commissionaires and swear out a judicial oath which gives them the power to witness and receive sworn affidavits by OW recipients and are used in court. Meanwhile some of these commissioners are lying through their teeth making themselves look good in the eyes of management for achieving what the Ontario Works Act, Regulations, and
Directives dictate by lessoning the numbers of people on benefits. This is done with full knowledge of immunity from the municipality and the provincial government with impunity.
The system allowed the client to be harassed and abused while having full knowledge that nobody within the system will listen, and act on the complaints of people on benefits. The stigma that welfare recipients are bums is still very much alive and well even today, by landlords, the general population and a great many people in power. The face of welfare recipients has changed drastically over the years and my missing client is a perfect example of that change. A very smart female from another country that just wanted a better life for her and her very polite, thoughtful and well mannered 12 year old son.
The client’s problems were exacerbated by the actions of Ontario Works workers and management with the massive problem of lost or missing documents at Ontario Works.
http://www.socialwork.utoronto.ca/fsw/fswsupport/sane/doc/OneYearOn.doc
Research on the problem of missing or lost documents was used in a presentation to Hamilton’s City Council, Hearings Sub-Committee and showed 6 of 11 documents were going missing. These documents prevented clients from receiving necessary mandatory benefits which they are absolutely entitled too by law.
http://www.myhamilton.ca/Hamilton.Portal/Inc/PortalPDFs/ClerkPDFs/committee-hearings/2002/June12/Minutes.pdf
Ontario Works had lost so many of her documents, most of her spare time was spent on Ontario Works matters filling out Internal Reviews and replacing all the alleged lost or missing documents. About 90% was for mandatory benefits that should have been paid immediately.
“This is all a clear and vivid example of bad faith.”
The client’s son once needed medically necessary emergency dental benefits.
Again the same old story, we do not pay for that. One manager said that welfare has paid for these kinds of benefits before, while the client’s worker, supervisor and the subsequent Internal Review both said that OW has no provisions for this kind of benefit. It was time for the client to appeal again. Who would represent her?
The Social Benefits Tribunal which was well known to just rubber stamp OW interpretations of their mandatory and discretionary powers, usually agreeing with OW’s position even when OW didn’t show up or give evidence at a hearing.
http://www.library.utoronto.ca/justiceandsocial/BoldlyGoing.doc
The system is so very complicated recipients can’t navigate through the voluminous rules that OW keeps to itself and very rarely shares with its clients. The client had experienced receiving bad legal advice more than once from our legal clinic, which services the vast majority of OW and OSSP in the downtown core here in Hamilton. This bad advice had caused her medically documented depression to intensify while costing my client thousands of dollars in wasted money and benefits.
After loosing all faith in the legal clinic lack of interest in her area the surrounding legal clinics also refused too help with the systemic and ever ongoing legal problems she had, by saying she can only use her designated legal clinic.
“The other two Legal Clinics in Hamilton even refused a request, in writing to meet with my organization Welfare Legal for the purpose of producing all evidence of corruption and bad faith that is going on in the City Of Hamilton.”
After applying for and receiving a legal aid certificate, it was necessary for her to get a Toronto lawyer that was well recommended by experienced people in the know. This was necessary after my organization did a survey of all Hamilton lawyers which results were very disturbing. The results showed the Mike Harris Conservative government’s cuts to legal aid and the meager amounts that were being paid for reduced legal services, there were no longer any lawyers in Hamilton that would do legal aid work except for one that had no experience with OW, ODSP or the SBT.
Ontario Works said to the Tribunal in writing, that the Social Benefits Tribunal had no authority to hear this requested appeal as the City of Hamilton had no provisions for this discretionary benefit. They were so absolutely sure the tribunal would just agree with them they wrote that Ontario Works would not be showing up or giving any evidence. OW was relying on the Tribunal’s rubber stamp knowing full well that the system would not help her.
A Toronto lawyer sent notice to the client and Legal Aid, saying that my client had no hope of being successful if he were to represent her. Now what is she going to do? I spent weeks trying to get her help but the help didn’t exist.
I represented my client at the Tribunal even though I had had very little experience at this level. My reasoning was that only a corrupt kangaroo court would give a decision to a side that didn’t even bother to show up or give any evidence, I gave evidence that OW had in fact paid for the requested emergency medical dental benefit to children before and gave evidence that the Tribunal could in fact, hear the case.
The Ontario Works Regulations state;
Decision of Tribunal
The Tribunal shall deliver a written decision to the parties to an appeal within 60 days after it last receives evidence or submissions on the appeal. O. Reg. 227/98, s. 37.
The Tribunal heard this case on Feb 3rd 2004 and had not given a decision before my client and her son went missing 5 months later, knowing full well that this benefit was a request for emergency medical benefits and had documentation from the 12 year olds doctor that states that not having this emergency operation it will have negative effect on the boy’s heath for life.
At a different hearing a SBT member told my client and I that the Tribunal will make its decision within 60 days. The client then informed the Tribunal member that it’s been about 4½ months wait at that time for the Tribunal to make a decision on a previous hearing where OW didn't even bother to show up. The only thing the Tribunal member would say after that is that my client has a right to make a complaint to Ontario’s Ombudsman. In other words there is no enforcement of the Ontario Works Act or Regulations available within the city or the provincial ministry to deal with an emergency.
When we were talking to the member after this hearing about the apparent fraud of the system itself, the member reassured us that if there was an overpayment over $45,000 he would not find a finding of guilt if OW or ODSP didn't show up. So that means if the faulty computer prints out a faulty overpayment of $44,999 and OW doesn't show up you could very well owe big time and there is nothing you could do about it. Should you do not have the ability to appeal to the next court level.
The client was supposed to meet me at 9:00am on June 25 2004 for another information update. The system was seemingly designed to harass people on benefits. This is clearly shown in the evidence we have recorded and documented. Ontario Works asks every year to see her income tax when they have already received this info from the Canadian government, using the legal authority given to them in the consent/disclose information form that I described above.
The harassment and abuse never stopped attacking the client. Some worker phoned her threatening to cut her off if she did not comply with a letter that OW was presently writing and immediately going to send her. The client was deeply depressed at this point in time over the corruption she was encountering with the system and OW. Her medical problems and medications arising from all the incidences that OW caused and are liable for are well documented with her doctor and are contained in her medical file.
The one and only very real obstacle recipients have to deal with, at present is they will get no legal help here in Ontario. The legal system available to them is basically lawyer less, regarding acting on these types of legal issues (Bad Faith) and Ontario Works, ODSP and the Province knows it. In fact they count on it, they rely on it. The stigmas recipients have been unfairly labeled with are simple to strong for anybody to do anything about it
The province is receiving millions of dollars, illegally, with it’s faulty, overpayments, suspensions cancellations, missing documents, acts of bad faith and let’s not forget the missing 500,000 Ontario Works recipients.
They have been able to redirect millions upon millions of dollars, taking from the poor and giving to the rich illegally.
We have to ask the media to print the truth about the real fraud the Harris government pulled on the people of Ontario. The process developed here in Ontario allows corruption, harassment and abuse to run in essence undetectable.
The real crime here is that the premier of Ontario Dalton McGuinty and his provincial Liberals are not doing a damn thing about it, and they know what I am saying here is fact.
On June 25th 2004 my friend and her son went missing, just like many, many thousands before her. I have shown but the tip of the evidence that unmistakably, and yet clearly shows that the policies that the Mike Harris Conservatives adopted from Anderson, now Accenture and that broken computer program they knowingly bought is the cause.
Approximately 60 days after my client went missing the Social Benefits Tribunal sent me the decision for her son’s, emergency medical dental appeal. My client and her son had won.
Ontario Works then tried to appeal that decision and lost. Go figure, they didn’t show up and didn’t give any evidence. Talk about abuse of process.
Ron Payne
Welfare Legal
19 John Street North
Hamilton, Ontario
L8R-1H1
Phone 289-808-5047
E-mail welfarelegal2004@hotmail.com
E-mail welfarelegal2004@gmail.com
Missing Ontario Works Recipients
What happened to an estimated 500,000 + people that left the welfare rolls since Mike Harris and his Tory’s came into power? A select group of people have a good idea but where is all the proof. Their has been very little research done on the issue and the general population is not aware of the facts about the real fraud of Ontario Works and the people who need this kind of help. We need to educate.
http://www.socialwork.utoronto.ca/fsw/fswsupport/sane/doc/herd_rhetoric.pdf
The computer program that the Tory’s bought from that USA company Anderson Consulting now Accenture was broken when they bought it. The widely documented and highly publicized, internet is full of evidence that shows Anderson/Accenture has been sued all over the world because these programs just didn’t work properly. The 64 000 dollar question is did the Tory’s know this at the time. It would be extremely unlikely that the Tory’s would have signed a then estimated $135.5 million contract with a company from another country without doing a simple check of the company’s record.
http://www.computerworld.com/careertopics/careers/consulting/story/0,10801,94951,00.html
In a 2001 document the costs for this computer program was 400 million dollars and counting. I wonder how much it is today?
http://cupe.ca/PrivatizationSocialServices/accenturefactsheet
Well common sense tells us that this “check” was done so why did the Tories buy it? It was money. Millions of dollars would be taken away from single mothers, children, men and women alike. This would be accomplished very quickly with Anderson/Accenture’s contract, policies and computer program. The Conservatives (The Mike Harris, Tory government) simply and overnight established 800 hundred new rules governing eligibility for welfare payments for the sole purpose of reducing caseloads (savings).
The one case below among many outstanding ones out there today, has been fully documented with audio tape recordings of various meetings with Ontario Works staff myself and a friend, turned client, a single mother, who just wanted to get an education and then a job so she could give her 12 year old son a better life.
The hard proof research shows that this is not the exception, “It’s The Rule”.
Case in point
For the past few years I have been doing advocacy and research relating to Bad Faith at Ontario Works and ODSP and this is just a small part of one example of many that the Harris Conservative government purposefully allowed to happen to the most vulnerable and unequipped in society.
On June 25 2004 at 9:05AM I made an official complaint to a Hamilton’s Ontario Works manager. I informed him that a client of mine file was missing and that I allege that the reason she was missing was because of corruption (Bad Faith) in the City of Hamilton at his Ontario Works (OW) office.
This single 45 year old mother from Poland and her 12 year old son had been harassed and abused systemically by OW workers for years. I know this because I was there, with her, taping the interviews, and making copies of all the documentation regarding her experience with Ontario Works. The information gathered is absolutely unbelievable, considering that they did this right in front of me, an external witness to the fact.
Various and yet numerous attempts by administration to extort money out of her illegally through alleged overpayments that the computer wrongly and illogically printed out. Remember the broken computer program the Tory’s bought from Anderson/Accenture. She had to be on the ball and ready to quickly appeal the many alleged overpayments, suspensions, cancellations and bad decisions from Ontario Works relating to her and her son’s eligibility.
The majority of OW recipients that had reported these errors said they didn’t know how to navigate the very complicated legal appeal process and is having to pay back money they in fact didn’t owe.
Making appointments in writing for 2pm and when our arrival 10 minutes early, we find out from Ontario Works her benefits have been suspended because she didn't show up at 9am, we were forced to appeal, (save your documents people) the letter by the administration said 2pm. One appointment the worker never showed up at all. They said they phoned her 20 minutes before the meeting time to say the meeting was canceled. It was a 4 mile walk from her home to the welfare office as she didn’t have any money for the bus.
Sometimes OW would call her in every two months. She was going to school full time and had to take time off. They would ask her to bring in her school attendance records all the time even though they already had this information. OW had already got this information by using the Consent to Disclose and Verify Information form that all OW and ODSP recipients are required to sign that allows workers to get information from anybody regarding the client and/or spouse and/or children.
The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia found this type of document is an intrusion of ones privacy and is illegal.
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=Glasgow+v.+Nova+Scotia+&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/ns/nssc/doc/1999/1999canlii2328/1999canlii2328.html
Making her walk 3½ to 4 miles one way to school all year round while a Ontario Works supervisor purposefully and in bad faith denied the existence of a buss pass to go to school. The same supervisor purposefully denied the existence of a buss pass and start-up allowance to do volunteer work. This lady was not sitting around doing nothing.
I did a survey of people that attended an ODSP forum sponsored by a Hamilton Legal Clinic, which I was a guest speaker at and 70% of the social workers that attended didn't know that the bus pass benefit even existed. Finally, the supervisor admitted her acts of bad faith, when I asked her in front of industry workers and legal clinic lawyers if Ontario works supplies these mandatory benefits. She had to say yes, she couldn’t lie in front of them. She certainly did not have conscience in any problem lying to my clients, even right in front of me.
Some supervisors routinely lie and give faults information to OW staff and OW clients.
Another part of that survey showed that 90% of the social workers didn’t know that if a Legal Clinic in Ontario refused to assist an Ontario Works or ODSP client the client could then get a Legal Aid Certificate and hire a their own lawyer.
What about the client? Routinely requests for benefits were mostly denied or ignored by Ontario Works workers and supervisors. One of the many resulting Internal Review requests was denied, in writing because a decision was never made, therefore she can't have an Internal Review. They also wrote that the request she is asking for was a discretionary benefit and cannot be appealed. (WRONG) It was clearly a mandatory benefit and can be appealed
Then to the horror after appealing to the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) anyway, the Tribunal lost her appeal documentation, the file just got up and walked away. Now the SBT says too much time has passed and she cannot appeal (WRONG). All this happened while she was still walking to school summer and winter. Her legs and back were very sore. This and all of the intense stress caused by the Tribunal and the Ontario Works staffs acting in bad faith are well documented in her medical file.
One OW supervisor threw us out of her office the second she found out who my client was. She was the one that had appealed all those faulty overpayments and made Ontario Works and its computer program look like a total fraud. We went there with an appointment to report the corruption of OW denying the existence of the mandatory, bus pass and volunteer benefits.
Finally after all that, we again asked another worker a for the bus pass. This worker had previously denied the existence of the benefit and low and behold and without the usual step of asking the supervisor the worker granted the mandatory bus pass benefit.
“This took almost two years to get and finally happened two months before she and her son went missing.”
Another of her assigned workers threw us out of her office, illegally suspending her benefits, when I refused to give the worker my last name. Then her worker fabricated evidence in writing as to why the meeting ended. The complaint process which is incredibly not a written policy in Hamilton was totally ignored by this worker when I asked her to get us a supervisor to deal with this corruption.
“The systemic policies allow workers to interpret the laws individually and when they have to fix their mistakes they are able to do so deceitfully and with immunity. The system very rarely admits to its mistakes.”
Then the city of Hamilton tried to cover the incident up by not giving any of the requested relevant full disclosure documentation when we asked for it in a Freedom of Information Act request. The suspension had to be appealed. The city only gave us half of the documented evidence that didn’t show the workers fabricated part. My client and I were in the process of swearing out affidavits that totally contradicted the workers fabricated written evidence. The city finally gave us a copy of the whole document only after I threatened to appeal and expose the corruption and acts of bad faith.
“The evidence is called narrative notes. These notes are prescribed by law and are legal documents. The notes are made by workers explaining any contact with a client and/or work done in the clients file and must be written within 24 hours from the time of the contact.”
This issue of abuse, harassment and Ontario Works acting in bad faith is amplified by the fact Ontario Works workers are commissionaires and swear out a judicial oath which gives them the power to witness and receive sworn affidavits by OW recipients and are used in court. Meanwhile some of these commissioners are lying through their teeth making themselves look good in the eyes of management for achieving what the Ontario Works Act, Regulations, and
Directives dictate by lessoning the numbers of people on benefits. This is done with full knowledge of immunity from the municipality and the provincial government with impunity.
The system allowed the client to be harassed and abused while having full knowledge that nobody within the system will listen, and act on the complaints of people on benefits. The stigma that welfare recipients are bums is still very much alive and well even today, by landlords, the general population and a great many people in power. The face of welfare recipients has changed drastically over the years and my missing client is a perfect example of that change. A very smart female from another country that just wanted a better life for her and her very polite, thoughtful and well mannered 12 year old son.
The client’s problems were exacerbated by the actions of Ontario Works workers and management with the massive problem of lost or missing documents at Ontario Works.
http://www.socialwork.utoronto.ca/fsw/fswsupport/sane/doc/OneYearOn.doc
Research on the problem of missing or lost documents was used in a presentation to Hamilton’s City Council, Hearings Sub-Committee and showed 6 of 11 documents were going missing. These documents prevented clients from receiving necessary mandatory benefits which they are absolutely entitled too by law.
http://www.myhamilton.ca/Hamilton.Portal/Inc/PortalPDFs/ClerkPDFs/committee-hearings/2002/June12/Minutes.pdf
Ontario Works had lost so many of her documents, most of her spare time was spent on Ontario Works matters filling out Internal Reviews and replacing all the alleged lost or missing documents. About 90% was for mandatory benefits that should have been paid immediately.
“This is all a clear and vivid example of bad faith.”
The client’s son once needed medically necessary emergency dental benefits.
Again the same old story, we do not pay for that. One manager said that welfare has paid for these kinds of benefits before, while the client’s worker, supervisor and the subsequent Internal Review both said that OW has no provisions for this kind of benefit. It was time for the client to appeal again. Who would represent her?
The Social Benefits Tribunal which was well known to just rubber stamp OW interpretations of their mandatory and discretionary powers, usually agreeing with OW’s position even when OW didn’t show up or give evidence at a hearing.
http://www.library.utoronto.ca/justiceandsocial/BoldlyGoing.doc
The system is so very complicated recipients can’t navigate through the voluminous rules that OW keeps to itself and very rarely shares with its clients. The client had experienced receiving bad legal advice more than once from our legal clinic, which services the vast majority of OW and OSSP in the downtown core here in Hamilton. This bad advice had caused her medically documented depression to intensify while costing my client thousands of dollars in wasted money and benefits.
After loosing all faith in the legal clinic lack of interest in her area the surrounding legal clinics also refused too help with the systemic and ever ongoing legal problems she had, by saying she can only use her designated legal clinic.
“The other two Legal Clinics in Hamilton even refused a request, in writing to meet with my organization Welfare Legal for the purpose of producing all evidence of corruption and bad faith that is going on in the City Of Hamilton.”
After applying for and receiving a legal aid certificate, it was necessary for her to get a Toronto lawyer that was well recommended by experienced people in the know. This was necessary after my organization did a survey of all Hamilton lawyers which results were very disturbing. The results showed the Mike Harris Conservative government’s cuts to legal aid and the meager amounts that were being paid for reduced legal services, there were no longer any lawyers in Hamilton that would do legal aid work except for one that had no experience with OW, ODSP or the SBT.
Ontario Works said to the Tribunal in writing, that the Social Benefits Tribunal had no authority to hear this requested appeal as the City of Hamilton had no provisions for this discretionary benefit. They were so absolutely sure the tribunal would just agree with them they wrote that Ontario Works would not be showing up or giving any evidence. OW was relying on the Tribunal’s rubber stamp knowing full well that the system would not help her.
A Toronto lawyer sent notice to the client and Legal Aid, saying that my client had no hope of being successful if he were to represent her. Now what is she going to do? I spent weeks trying to get her help but the help didn’t exist.
I represented my client at the Tribunal even though I had had very little experience at this level. My reasoning was that only a corrupt kangaroo court would give a decision to a side that didn’t even bother to show up or give any evidence, I gave evidence that OW had in fact paid for the requested emergency medical dental benefit to children before and gave evidence that the Tribunal could in fact, hear the case.
The Ontario Works Regulations state;
Decision of Tribunal
The Tribunal shall deliver a written decision to the parties to an appeal within 60 days after it last receives evidence or submissions on the appeal. O. Reg. 227/98, s. 37.
The Tribunal heard this case on Feb 3rd 2004 and had not given a decision before my client and her son went missing 5 months later, knowing full well that this benefit was a request for emergency medical benefits and had documentation from the 12 year olds doctor that states that not having this emergency operation it will have negative effect on the boy’s heath for life.
At a different hearing a SBT member told my client and I that the Tribunal will make its decision within 60 days. The client then informed the Tribunal member that it’s been about 4½ months wait at that time for the Tribunal to make a decision on a previous hearing where OW didn't even bother to show up. The only thing the Tribunal member would say after that is that my client has a right to make a complaint to Ontario’s Ombudsman. In other words there is no enforcement of the Ontario Works Act or Regulations available within the city or the provincial ministry to deal with an emergency.
When we were talking to the member after this hearing about the apparent fraud of the system itself, the member reassured us that if there was an overpayment over $45,000 he would not find a finding of guilt if OW or ODSP didn't show up. So that means if the faulty computer prints out a faulty overpayment of $44,999 and OW doesn't show up you could very well owe big time and there is nothing you could do about it. Should you do not have the ability to appeal to the next court level.
The client was supposed to meet me at 9:00am on June 25 2004 for another information update. The system was seemingly designed to harass people on benefits. This is clearly shown in the evidence we have recorded and documented. Ontario Works asks every year to see her income tax when they have already received this info from the Canadian government, using the legal authority given to them in the consent/disclose information form that I described above.
The harassment and abuse never stopped attacking the client. Some worker phoned her threatening to cut her off if she did not comply with a letter that OW was presently writing and immediately going to send her. The client was deeply depressed at this point in time over the corruption she was encountering with the system and OW. Her medical problems and medications arising from all the incidences that OW caused and are liable for are well documented with her doctor and are contained in her medical file.
The one and only very real obstacle recipients have to deal with, at present is they will get no legal help here in Ontario. The legal system available to them is basically lawyer less, regarding acting on these types of legal issues (Bad Faith) and Ontario Works, ODSP and the Province knows it. In fact they count on it, they rely on it. The stigmas recipients have been unfairly labeled with are simple to strong for anybody to do anything about it
The province is receiving millions of dollars, illegally, with it’s faulty, overpayments, suspensions cancellations, missing documents, acts of bad faith and let’s not forget the missing 500,000 Ontario Works recipients.
They have been able to redirect millions upon millions of dollars, taking from the poor and giving to the rich illegally.
We have to ask the media to print the truth about the real fraud the Harris government pulled on the people of Ontario. The process developed here in Ontario allows corruption, harassment and abuse to run in essence undetectable.
The real crime here is that the premier of Ontario Dalton McGuinty and his provincial Liberals are not doing a damn thing about it, and they know what I am saying here is fact.
On June 25th 2004 my friend and her son went missing, just like many, many thousands before her. I have shown but the tip of the evidence that unmistakably, and yet clearly shows that the policies that the Mike Harris Conservatives adopted from Anderson, now Accenture and that broken computer program they knowingly bought is the cause.
Approximately 60 days after my client went missing the Social Benefits Tribunal sent me the decision for her son’s, emergency medical dental appeal. My client and her son had won.
Ontario Works then tried to appeal that decision and lost. Go figure, they didn’t show up and didn’t give any evidence. Talk about abuse of process.
Ron Payne
Welfare Legal
19 John Street North
Hamilton, Ontario
L8R-1H1
Phone 289-808-5047
E-mail welfarelegal2004@hotmail.com
E-mail welfarelegal2004@gmail.com
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Definition of Corruption = Ontario Works, OW, Ontario Disability Support Program, ODSP
WHO IS REALLY COMMITTING THE FRAUD AROUND HERE
The general public has no idea what the system is really like. They think fraud is ramped in Ontario Works and ODSP. Here is something to think about and it is just the tip of the iceberg according to our research.
The provincial government says welfare fraud is around 2%.
Who is really committing the fraud around here?
The federal government says income tax fraud is 13%
Ontario Works staff charged in $1.3million Fraud
By Sarah Elizabeth Brown Tuesday March 4,2008
Chronicle Journal http://tbay.ok.bc.ca/stories.php?id=95704
Fraud Charges laid against a number of Ontario Works, Staff
http://www.toronto.ca/audit/2003/annual_report_fraud_related_matters_hotline_sep_3_03_final.pdf
Budget cuts allow more Ontario Works staff fraud.
http://www.toronto.ca/budget2005/pdf/cns_shortfallservicelost.pdf
Government ODSP worker charged in $585,000 fraud case.
By SooToday.com Staff Wednesday, November 14, 2007
SooToday
http://www.sootoday.com/content/news/full_story.asp?StoryNumber=28485
http://odsp.blogspot.com/2007/11/former-government-worker-charged-in.html
Ontario Works administrator charged with fraud
Police allege more than $100,000 was taken from Ontario Works.
http://www.wawataynews.ca/node/11522
93.7 million dollars in corporate welfare
Linda Leatherdale March 7,2008
http://money.canoe.ca/Columnists/Leatherdale/2008/03/07/4938021-sun.html
http://theoldcraftsman.com/blog/?p=387#comment-174
Premier Dalton McGuity is handing over a 9.7 million dollar corporate welfare cheque to Kellogg. Kellogg’s profit was $1 billion. Also Ford got a $55 million cheque and is now cutting shifts, while GM got $29million and is also cutting shifts.
$150 million called corporate welfare for a profitable industry.
Rob Ferguson January 10, 2008
Queens Park Bureau http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/292631
The Ontario Government has earmarked $150 million to encourage pharmaceutical companies to do more drug research and manufacturing in the province.
Ontario government coughs up about $940 million a year on grants like this one.
Health Canada has been advised that Tic Tacs are being voluntarily recalled. Premier McGuinty should demand taxpayers get back the $5.5 million the government gave to this corporate welfare failure.
http://www.taxpayerblog.com/2008/04/health-canada-advisory-recalling-tic.html
******************
Hamilton’s, Ontario Works Staff Fraud
An internal audit in Hamilton, Ontario showed that Ontario Works staff were taking the city’s credit card out and enjoying a nice lunch privately.The same audit showed that the Ontario Works workers had access to the main computer that issues their clients checks
In a different Audit city staff admit missing cheque signatures.http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/EB0B3640-1762-4BB2-AA41-479304DB9381/0/Dec05CM07029OntarioWorksOperationsofDataCentre200707.pdf
The system allows the data center staff to renumber the cheque printing sequences. The lack of an independent review allows for an opportunity by staff to manipulate the controls and misappropriate any number of cheques.
The operating keys are left in the cheque signing machines and the password to operate the cheque signer is openly displayed in an internal policy document.
The risk arises out of unauthorized manipulation of cheques by staff, clients or others. It assumes significance in the absence of regular bank reconciliations.
http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/770B3878-9962-4880-B3C7-85D1D2706B07/0/Oct18CM06021FollowUpOWandSDMT200403.pdf
Isn’t that a recipe for disaster?
Ron Payne
Welfare Legal
Hamilton, Ontario
E-mail welfarelegal2004@hotmail.com
The general public has no idea what the system is really like. They think fraud is ramped in Ontario Works and ODSP. Here is something to think about and it is just the tip of the iceberg according to our research.
The provincial government says welfare fraud is around 2%.
Who is really committing the fraud around here?
The federal government says income tax fraud is 13%
Ontario Works staff charged in $1.3million Fraud
By Sarah Elizabeth Brown Tuesday March 4,2008
Chronicle Journal http://tbay.ok.bc.ca/stories.php?id=95704
Fraud Charges laid against a number of Ontario Works, Staff
http://www.toronto.ca/audit/2003/annual_report_fraud_related_matters_hotline_sep_3_03_final.pdf
Budget cuts allow more Ontario Works staff fraud.
http://www.toronto.ca/budget2005/pdf/cns_shortfallservicelost.pdf
Government ODSP worker charged in $585,000 fraud case.
By SooToday.com Staff Wednesday, November 14, 2007
SooToday
http://www.sootoday.com/content/news/full_story.asp?StoryNumber=28485
http://odsp.blogspot.com/2007/11/former-government-worker-charged-in.html
Ontario Works administrator charged with fraud
Police allege more than $100,000 was taken from Ontario Works.
http://www.wawataynews.ca/node/11522
93.7 million dollars in corporate welfare
Linda Leatherdale March 7,2008
http://money.canoe.ca/Columnists/Leatherdale/2008/03/07/4938021-sun.html
http://theoldcraftsman.com/blog/?p=387#comment-174
Premier Dalton McGuity is handing over a 9.7 million dollar corporate welfare cheque to Kellogg. Kellogg’s profit was $1 billion. Also Ford got a $55 million cheque and is now cutting shifts, while GM got $29million and is also cutting shifts.
$150 million called corporate welfare for a profitable industry.
Rob Ferguson January 10, 2008
Queens Park Bureau http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/292631
The Ontario Government has earmarked $150 million to encourage pharmaceutical companies to do more drug research and manufacturing in the province.
Ontario government coughs up about $940 million a year on grants like this one.
Health Canada has been advised that Tic Tacs are being voluntarily recalled. Premier McGuinty should demand taxpayers get back the $5.5 million the government gave to this corporate welfare failure.
http://www.taxpayerblog.com/2008/04/health-canada-advisory-recalling-tic.html
******************
Hamilton’s, Ontario Works Staff Fraud
An internal audit in Hamilton, Ontario showed that Ontario Works staff were taking the city’s credit card out and enjoying a nice lunch privately.The same audit showed that the Ontario Works workers had access to the main computer that issues their clients checks
In a different Audit city staff admit missing cheque signatures.http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/EB0B3640-1762-4BB2-AA41-479304DB9381/0/Dec05CM07029OntarioWorksOperationsofDataCentre200707.pdf
The system allows the data center staff to renumber the cheque printing sequences. The lack of an independent review allows for an opportunity by staff to manipulate the controls and misappropriate any number of cheques.
The operating keys are left in the cheque signing machines and the password to operate the cheque signer is openly displayed in an internal policy document.
The risk arises out of unauthorized manipulation of cheques by staff, clients or others. It assumes significance in the absence of regular bank reconciliations.
http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/770B3878-9962-4880-B3C7-85D1D2706B07/0/Oct18CM06021FollowUpOWandSDMT200403.pdf
Isn’t that a recipe for disaster?
Ron Payne
Welfare Legal
Hamilton, Ontario
E-mail welfarelegal2004@hotmail.com
Saturday, May 3, 2008
The corruption known as Ontario Works, OW, Ontario Disability Support Program, ODSP
This was sent to the Premier of Ontario Dalton McGuinty, the Minister of Community and Social Services Madeleine Meilleur, Hamilton Mayor Fred Eisenberger and Hamilton city councilor Bernie Morelli, via e-mail on Feb 24 08.
My question to you and to myself is how do they get away with the callous and unjust manner that workers approach their clients with, at Ontario Works, ODSP and even the Social Benefits Tribunal?
For the record I would like to state, I have seen many improvements to the SBT since a change of it’s Chair and I expect to see many more.
I can’t say the same for Ontario Works and ODSP.The research shows when clients have contact with workers the response is not always the same. You could ask three different workers the same question and receive three different answers.
If the worker doesn't especially like you, they will simply ignore you. This means things like no return phone calls, ignoring verbal requests for benefits, requesting more than usual documents be brought in to prove eligibility and so on.
If the worker really doesn't like you, they will often do everything in their power to harass, intimidate and frustrate you into giving up and going away. This means things like ignoring written requests for benefits, telling you that the benefit doesn’t exist, denying benefits when you are entitled and no decision letters and so on.
If the worker does like you, they will give you any of the benefits that you ask for if you entitled. This is only if the worker is aware of the benefits requested. Here is an interesting problem. The vast majority of the workers are not aware of benefits that are available. This even includes some of the excellent workers.
Another problem is that the fast majority of clients don’t even know what the benefits are.
********All clients must document, tape record and video record everything, every time when dealing with any OW or ODSP staff. ********
The governments must, as a gesture of good will, give all Ontario Works and ODSP clients a written copy of the benefits that they say clients are entitled.This would be a first concrete step taken to start the process in eliminating poverty.
Ontario Works Directive # 31.0 found at http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/mcss/english/pillars/social/directives/ow_policy_directives.htm
or the:Ontario Disability Support Program Directives #s 9.1 to 9.19 Found at http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/mcss/english/pillars/social/directives/ODSP_incomesupport.htm
The only real remedy to this problem is for clients to sue their respective governments.
For Ontario Works it would be their local municipal government and the Province of Ontario and for ODSP it would be the Province of Ontario.
In the Ontario Works Act it states
No personal liability77.(1)No action or other proceeding in damages shall be instituted against the Ministry, the Director, a delivery agent, an officer or employee of any of them or anyone acting under their authority for any act done in good faith in the execution or intended execution of a duty or authority under this Act or for any alleged neglect or default in the execution in good faith of any duty or authority under this Act.
In the Ontario Disability Support Program it states
No personal liability58. (1) No action or other proceeding in damages shall be instituted against the Ministry, the Director or a delivery agent, an officer, employee of any of them or anyone acting under their authority for any act done in good faith in the execution or intended execution of a duty or authority under this Act or for any alleged neglect or default in the execution in good faith of any duty or authority under this Act. 1997, c. 25, Sched. B, s. 58 (1).
This means that a client could sue for damages if bad faith could be proven.
It is called bad faith; a person who intentionally tries to deceive or mislead another in order to gain some advantage.
It is called willful blindness or willful deceit.
The government must get rid of the discretionary powers it allows workers in the OW and OSSP, Act, Regulations and Directives. You’re either entitled to benefits or your not.
It is extremely simple but the government will not do it until it gets sued for Bad Faith.
It’s so simple; all the government has to do is to look at how the federal government implements its Employment Insurance application process, and they are saving millions.
To receive benefits you must go online to apply, with exceptions for some disabled clients. You fill out a simple template and the next thing you experience is a cheque in the mail.
If the federal government trusts us why can’t you?
Ron Payne
Welfare Legal
Hamilton, Ontario.
Phone 289-808-5047
E-mail welfarelegal2004@gmail.com
My question to you and to myself is how do they get away with the callous and unjust manner that workers approach their clients with, at Ontario Works, ODSP and even the Social Benefits Tribunal?
The answer is very simple. BECAUSE THEY CAN
For the record I would like to state, I have seen many improvements to the SBT since a change of it’s Chair and I expect to see many more.
I can’t say the same for Ontario Works and ODSP.The research shows when clients have contact with workers the response is not always the same. You could ask three different workers the same question and receive three different answers.
If the worker doesn't especially like you, they will simply ignore you. This means things like no return phone calls, ignoring verbal requests for benefits, requesting more than usual documents be brought in to prove eligibility and so on.
If the worker really doesn't like you, they will often do everything in their power to harass, intimidate and frustrate you into giving up and going away. This means things like ignoring written requests for benefits, telling you that the benefit doesn’t exist, denying benefits when you are entitled and no decision letters and so on.
If the worker does like you, they will give you any of the benefits that you ask for if you entitled. This is only if the worker is aware of the benefits requested. Here is an interesting problem. The vast majority of the workers are not aware of benefits that are available. This even includes some of the excellent workers.
Another problem is that the fast majority of clients don’t even know what the benefits are.
********All clients must document, tape record and video record everything, every time when dealing with any OW or ODSP staff. ********
The governments must, as a gesture of good will, give all Ontario Works and ODSP clients a written copy of the benefits that they say clients are entitled.This would be a first concrete step taken to start the process in eliminating poverty.
Ontario Works Directive # 31.0 found at http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/mcss/english/pillars/social/directives/ow_policy_directives.htm
or the:Ontario Disability Support Program Directives #s 9.1 to 9.19 Found at http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/mcss/english/pillars/social/directives/ODSP_incomesupport.htm
The only real remedy to this problem is for clients to sue their respective governments.
For Ontario Works it would be their local municipal government and the Province of Ontario and for ODSP it would be the Province of Ontario.
In the Ontario Works Act it states
No personal liability77.(1)No action or other proceeding in damages shall be instituted against the Ministry, the Director, a delivery agent, an officer or employee of any of them or anyone acting under their authority for any act done in good faith in the execution or intended execution of a duty or authority under this Act or for any alleged neglect or default in the execution in good faith of any duty or authority under this Act.
In the Ontario Disability Support Program it states
No personal liability58. (1) No action or other proceeding in damages shall be instituted against the Ministry, the Director or a delivery agent, an officer, employee of any of them or anyone acting under their authority for any act done in good faith in the execution or intended execution of a duty or authority under this Act or for any alleged neglect or default in the execution in good faith of any duty or authority under this Act. 1997, c. 25, Sched. B, s. 58 (1).
This means that a client could sue for damages if bad faith could be proven.
It is called bad faith; a person who intentionally tries to deceive or mislead another in order to gain some advantage.
It is called willful blindness or willful deceit.
The government must get rid of the discretionary powers it allows workers in the OW and OSSP, Act, Regulations and Directives. You’re either entitled to benefits or your not.
It is extremely simple but the government will not do it until it gets sued for Bad Faith.
It’s so simple; all the government has to do is to look at how the federal government implements its Employment Insurance application process, and they are saving millions.
To receive benefits you must go online to apply, with exceptions for some disabled clients. You fill out a simple template and the next thing you experience is a cheque in the mail.
If the federal government trusts us why can’t you?
Ron Payne
Welfare Legal
Hamilton, Ontario.
Phone 289-808-5047
E-mail welfarelegal2004@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
