• Poverty has a significant cost for governments. The federal and Ontario government are losing at least $10.4 billion to $13.1 billion a year due to poverty, a loss equal to between 10.8 to 16.6 per cent of the provincial budget.
• Poverty has a cost for every household in Ontario. In real terms, poverty costs every household in the province from $2,299 to $2,895 every year.• Poverty has a very significant total economic cost in Ontario. When both private and public (or social) costs are combined, the total cost of poverty in Ontario is equal to 5.5 to 6.6 per cent of Ontario’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The cost of poverty is reflected in remedial, inter generational, and opportunity costs.
• The remedial costs of poverty related to health care and crime are substantial. In Ontario, poverty-induced costs related to health care have an annual public cost of $2.9 billion. The national added cost to health care budgets is much greater, at $7.6 billion per year. The poverty-induced costs related to crime in Ontario have a relatively small annual public cost of $0.25 to $0.6 billion, split between federal and provincial governments.
• The annual cost of child or inter generational poverty is very high. If child poverty were eliminated, the extra income tax revenues nationally would be between $3.1 billion and $3.8 billion, while for Ontario, the additional (federal and provincial) taxes would amount to $1.3 billion to $1.6 billion. The total economic cost (private and social) of child poverty Ontario is $4.6 to 5.9 billion annually.
• Opportunity costs or lost productivity due to poverty has a great economic cost. Federal and provincial governments across Canada lose between $8.6 billion and $13 billion in income tax revenue to poverty every year; in the case of Ontario, Ottawa and Queen’s Park lose a combined $4 billion to $6.1 billion.
Full story
http://indpress.wordpress.com/an-analysis-of-the-economic-cost-of-poverty-in-ontario-a-plan-to-cut-poverty-in-half-by-2020-by-yhe-oafb/
For more stories go to http://welfarelegal.blogspot.com/
Ron Payne
Welfare Legal
Hamilton, Ontario
Email welfarelegal2004@hotmail.com
Blog http://welfarelegal.blogspot.com/
Group http://groups.google.com/group/bad-faith-in-owodsp?hl=en
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Legal Clinics
The questions
Are you satisfied with your local legal clinic?
Have you ever been turned down by your local legal clinic and what did you do about it?
Do you have faith in your local legal clinic?
How could your local legal clinic improve itself if at all?
Have you been hurt by any of the above?
Have you ever wished you could have gotten help from somewhere else?
For more stories go to http://welfarelegal.blogspot.com/
Ron Payne
Welfare Legal
Hamilton, Ontario
Email welfarelegal2004@hotmail.com
Group http://groups.google.com/group/bad-faith-in-owodsp?hl=en
Are you satisfied with your local legal clinic?
Have you ever been turned down by your local legal clinic and what did you do about it?
Do you have faith in your local legal clinic?
How could your local legal clinic improve itself if at all?
Have you been hurt by any of the above?
Have you ever wished you could have gotten help from somewhere else?
For more stories go to http://welfarelegal.blogspot.com/
Ron Payne
Welfare Legal
Hamilton, Ontario
Email welfarelegal2004@hotmail.com
Group http://groups.google.com/group/bad-faith-in-owodsp?hl=en
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Letter To The Minister, Disabled Workers
January 16, 2009
Minister of Labour
The Honourable Peter Fonseca
400 University Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
Dear Minister Fonseca:
We are the Disabled Workers who could not attend the annual December 4th, 2008 demonstration at the Minister of Labour on University Ave. We are grateful to the Disabled Workers who could attend. We, like them, are from many parts of Ontario and could not travel due to lack of funds, extreme illnesses, chronic pain and lack of transportation.
Some of us have paid the ultimate price - loss of a family member due to a workplace fatality or occupational disease. Some of us still linger in the appeals process 8 years later and some even more years. We do not receive the compensation or support that we desperately need from the compensation system. You are the one responsible as part of the Ontario government, to make the reforms which we so desperately need. You have said you have met many Disabled Workers in your office, so you have had the chance to learn directly about our difficult situations.
Your government has made strong public declarations about reducing and eventually eliminating our poverty. Yet in the recent Poverty Report, Disabled Workers are not even mentioned. In fact, even cost of living adjustments from the WCB are clawed back from those who are on social assistance. We do not recognize the Poverty Report as being valid because of our exclusion. For those of us downloaded onto the provincial and federal levels, with ODSP or CPP-D, we live in a constant state of financial anxiety and we resent being a burden on the taxpayers rather than on the employers, who should be responsible for all the costs from workplace injuries and diseases.
You have not addressed many of our concerns. The Board is still using deeming to reduce benefits to injured workers who cannot return to work. The privatization of vocational rehabilitation has led to expensive and very ineffective labour market re-entry programs. Vocational rehabilitation should obviously be back inside the WCB, so the Board can advocate for re-employment of Disabled Workers.
You have not mentioned eliminating experience rating, which continues to provide incentives to employers to suppress injury claims and forces Disabled Workers into premature and unsafe return to work and because there is no moratorium on these rebates we do not feel the review will go far enough nor be objective.
However, our biggest concern is we are amongst the Disabled Worker community who is the most excluded of all, those who suffer with daily Chronic Pain. Are there not physical manifestations of disability in many psychological illnesses? Why would there not be psychological illness manifested in physical disabilities? Which are worsened while forced through the 'process' of trying to claim what is our rightful compensation, or was our right, before the Meredith Principles were thrown out the window by the Board.
This Catch-22 is universally known by all parties involved. Chronic pain sufferers are impaired by a condition that cannot be supported by objective findings, they have been subjected to persistent suspicions of malingering on the part of employers, compensation officials and even physicians. Yet after the one year cut-off date of compensation, a year during which proper medical evaluations are not done, using up-to-date MIR's etc., to truly get at the extent of the injuries, most especially spinal injuries, the disabled worker is now at the mercy of relying on the provincial health care system, whilst desperately looking for representation to field the demands of the Board, the Employer to keep the overwhelming stress at bay. If you live in a rural area, you must move to a city with the specialists and medical equipment needed to address your injuries. Now well into the quagmire of being isolated, depressed, in chronic pain and setting up the ride programs your town/city offers to get you to your appointments, the borrowing of wheelchairs and medical aids from Legions/Salvation Army and other charitable organizations, you are most likely visiting a Bankruptcy Trustee, because CPP Disability or ODSP or welfare cannot sustain your family. You've just been downloaded onto your community/family/neighbours, exactly what Sir Meredith said should not happen.
What Sir Meredith did say was Disabled Workers are to receive compensation for as long as the disability lasts. It has not gone unnoticed that the Board trots out the Meredith Principles (MP's) when they change WCB legislation. In so doing, the Board compels the general public to believe the change is of 'benefit' to workers, when in fact the change is about cost-cutting measures and therefore does 'harm' to workers. We respectfully request the Board to uphold the MP's as they were originally intended and to stop using the MP's as a public relations tool.
In our opinion Section 15.1 (2) Subsection (1) of the Charter has been violated See Ontarians did you ever ask why? http://iwocac.ning.com/forum/topics/ontarians-did-you-ever-ask-why , which takes us back to the stereotype that chronic pain stems from weakness of character rather than from the injury itself, a legitimate medical condition caused by the Board's malingering appeals process. All of this could be avoided by early medical intervention and treatment, which is denied to the grievously injured and disabled worker because it means a permanent pension until age 65. Far from dispelling the negative assumptions about chronic pain sufferers, the scheme actually reinforces them by sending the message that this condition is not "real", in the sense that it does not warrant individual assessment or adequate compensation. Chronic pain sufferers are thus deprived of recognition of the reality of their pain and impairment, as well as of a chance to establish their eligibility for benefits on an equal footing with others. This message clearly indicates that, chronic pain sufferers are not equally valued as members of Canadian society.
One other issue we would like to bring to your attention is a meeting in April of 2008 regarding the AMA guidelines. Prof. John F. Burton Tells NY Workers' Compensation Board: AMA Guides are "Hokum" and "Not Evidence Based". You will find all imbedded links to that meeting on this website:
NYWCA http://www.nyworkerscompensationalliance.org/archives/workers-compensation-ama-guidelines-prof-john-f-burton-tells-ny-workers-compensation-board-ama-guides-are-hokum-and-not-evidence-based.html
and the Update http://www.nyworkerscompensationalliance.org/
Canadian Disabled Workers have pointed out how, in Ontario, these AMA guides are still being used illegally by WCBs to determine impairment ratings. We respectfully request this be brought to the attention of the Board.
There are a number of other urgent issues which we could mention, but we wanted to focus on those which we consider the most important. Nevertheless, we would be remiss if we did not ask for an update on the issue the Sun brought to our attention with regards to Jill Hutcheon being paid by both the board and the labour ministry for years. As the Minister responsible for both the WCB and the MoL you have a commitment to hold both entities accountable to the general public. As well as an update on the Review the Board requested of its Experience Rating (Rebates to Companies that kill), brought to Mr. McGuinty's attention by the Star.
In our current economic hard times, we are very concerned the Board will be receiving pressure from employers to cut benefits. We have already paid too high a price, giving our province our health and labour and receiving nothing in return. We ask again that you strongly commit to a reform of our worker's compensation system that will fully compensate us for our losses and support us in being full, respected members of society.
We ask that you bring justice to Disabled Workers and their families and to please remember that many people have concluded WCB is a negative social determinant to the Health of our most vulnerable group and we believe this cannot be overstated enough.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. We anxiously await any and all replies.
Yours truly,
D. M. Boyle (Hamilton, Ontario)
Pete Clare (Lambton Shores)
For more stories go to http://welfarelegal.blogspot.com/
Minister of Labour
The Honourable Peter Fonseca
400 University Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
Dear Minister Fonseca:
We are the Disabled Workers who could not attend the annual December 4th, 2008 demonstration at the Minister of Labour on University Ave. We are grateful to the Disabled Workers who could attend. We, like them, are from many parts of Ontario and could not travel due to lack of funds, extreme illnesses, chronic pain and lack of transportation.
Some of us have paid the ultimate price - loss of a family member due to a workplace fatality or occupational disease. Some of us still linger in the appeals process 8 years later and some even more years. We do not receive the compensation or support that we desperately need from the compensation system. You are the one responsible as part of the Ontario government, to make the reforms which we so desperately need. You have said you have met many Disabled Workers in your office, so you have had the chance to learn directly about our difficult situations.
Your government has made strong public declarations about reducing and eventually eliminating our poverty. Yet in the recent Poverty Report, Disabled Workers are not even mentioned. In fact, even cost of living adjustments from the WCB are clawed back from those who are on social assistance. We do not recognize the Poverty Report as being valid because of our exclusion. For those of us downloaded onto the provincial and federal levels, with ODSP or CPP-D, we live in a constant state of financial anxiety and we resent being a burden on the taxpayers rather than on the employers, who should be responsible for all the costs from workplace injuries and diseases.
You have not addressed many of our concerns. The Board is still using deeming to reduce benefits to injured workers who cannot return to work. The privatization of vocational rehabilitation has led to expensive and very ineffective labour market re-entry programs. Vocational rehabilitation should obviously be back inside the WCB, so the Board can advocate for re-employment of Disabled Workers.
You have not mentioned eliminating experience rating, which continues to provide incentives to employers to suppress injury claims and forces Disabled Workers into premature and unsafe return to work and because there is no moratorium on these rebates we do not feel the review will go far enough nor be objective.
However, our biggest concern is we are amongst the Disabled Worker community who is the most excluded of all, those who suffer with daily Chronic Pain. Are there not physical manifestations of disability in many psychological illnesses? Why would there not be psychological illness manifested in physical disabilities? Which are worsened while forced through the 'process' of trying to claim what is our rightful compensation, or was our right, before the Meredith Principles were thrown out the window by the Board.
This Catch-22 is universally known by all parties involved. Chronic pain sufferers are impaired by a condition that cannot be supported by objective findings, they have been subjected to persistent suspicions of malingering on the part of employers, compensation officials and even physicians. Yet after the one year cut-off date of compensation, a year during which proper medical evaluations are not done, using up-to-date MIR's etc., to truly get at the extent of the injuries, most especially spinal injuries, the disabled worker is now at the mercy of relying on the provincial health care system, whilst desperately looking for representation to field the demands of the Board, the Employer to keep the overwhelming stress at bay. If you live in a rural area, you must move to a city with the specialists and medical equipment needed to address your injuries. Now well into the quagmire of being isolated, depressed, in chronic pain and setting up the ride programs your town/city offers to get you to your appointments, the borrowing of wheelchairs and medical aids from Legions/Salvation Army and other charitable organizations, you are most likely visiting a Bankruptcy Trustee, because CPP Disability or ODSP or welfare cannot sustain your family. You've just been downloaded onto your community/family/neighbours, exactly what Sir Meredith said should not happen.
What Sir Meredith did say was Disabled Workers are to receive compensation for as long as the disability lasts. It has not gone unnoticed that the Board trots out the Meredith Principles (MP's) when they change WCB legislation. In so doing, the Board compels the general public to believe the change is of 'benefit' to workers, when in fact the change is about cost-cutting measures and therefore does 'harm' to workers. We respectfully request the Board to uphold the MP's as they were originally intended and to stop using the MP's as a public relations tool.
In our opinion Section 15.1 (2) Subsection (1) of the Charter has been violated See Ontarians did you ever ask why? http://iwocac.ning.com/forum/topics/ontarians-did-you-ever-ask-why , which takes us back to the stereotype that chronic pain stems from weakness of character rather than from the injury itself, a legitimate medical condition caused by the Board's malingering appeals process. All of this could be avoided by early medical intervention and treatment, which is denied to the grievously injured and disabled worker because it means a permanent pension until age 65. Far from dispelling the negative assumptions about chronic pain sufferers, the scheme actually reinforces them by sending the message that this condition is not "real", in the sense that it does not warrant individual assessment or adequate compensation. Chronic pain sufferers are thus deprived of recognition of the reality of their pain and impairment, as well as of a chance to establish their eligibility for benefits on an equal footing with others. This message clearly indicates that, chronic pain sufferers are not equally valued as members of Canadian society.
One other issue we would like to bring to your attention is a meeting in April of 2008 regarding the AMA guidelines. Prof. John F. Burton Tells NY Workers' Compensation Board: AMA Guides are "Hokum" and "Not Evidence Based". You will find all imbedded links to that meeting on this website:
NYWCA http://www.nyworkerscompensationalliance.org/archives/workers-compensation-ama-guidelines-prof-john-f-burton-tells-ny-workers-compensation-board-ama-guides-are-hokum-and-not-evidence-based.html
and the Update http://www.nyworkerscompensationalliance.org/
Canadian Disabled Workers have pointed out how, in Ontario, these AMA guides are still being used illegally by WCBs to determine impairment ratings. We respectfully request this be brought to the attention of the Board.
There are a number of other urgent issues which we could mention, but we wanted to focus on those which we consider the most important. Nevertheless, we would be remiss if we did not ask for an update on the issue the Sun brought to our attention with regards to Jill Hutcheon being paid by both the board and the labour ministry for years. As the Minister responsible for both the WCB and the MoL you have a commitment to hold both entities accountable to the general public. As well as an update on the Review the Board requested of its Experience Rating (Rebates to Companies that kill), brought to Mr. McGuinty's attention by the Star.
In our current economic hard times, we are very concerned the Board will be receiving pressure from employers to cut benefits. We have already paid too high a price, giving our province our health and labour and receiving nothing in return. We ask again that you strongly commit to a reform of our worker's compensation system that will fully compensate us for our losses and support us in being full, respected members of society.
We ask that you bring justice to Disabled Workers and their families and to please remember that many people have concluded WCB is a negative social determinant to the Health of our most vulnerable group and we believe this cannot be overstated enough.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. We anxiously await any and all replies.
Yours truly,
D. M. Boyle (Hamilton, Ontario)
Pete Clare (Lambton Shores)
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/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
