David Thomasson Challenges Premier Dalton Chicken McGuinty

I, David Thomasson, have started a new Charter Challenge against the ODSP Act. July 19/10 I received a July 15/10 letter from Cornwall ODSP Income Support Specialist Dan Belanger demanding I verify my 2008 Farm Income by Sept 30/10 or lose my ODSP benefits.

I/Thomasson refuse to verify my Farm Income to ODSP until someone, anyone, even anonymously, proves the ODSP Act fully complies with the Charter.

I/Thomasson Triple Dare Premier Dalton Chicken McGuinty to punish me and make me a Charter Test Case, or immediately stop all ODSP Act discrimination against Ontario’s Disabled People.

I/Thomasson argue the first step in the ODSP Act quasi-judicial prosecution process, the ODSP Director’s Decision determining a disabled person has violated the ODSP Act, violates the Disabled Person’s Charter Right to Equality (innocent until proven guilty,  etc).

ODSP cannot punish me/Thomasson without  the Ontario Government intentionally  violating my Charter Right to Equality.

I/Thomasson figure Premier Dalton Chicken McGuinty is a Coward who won’t publicly defend the ODSP Act his Liberal Ontario Government enforces against Ontario’s Disabled People.

I/Thomasson figure Dalton is a Bully deliberately using massive Government power to persecute vulnerable disabled people even though he knows it’s wrong.

I/Thomasson figure Dalton is a Chicken because he is afraid to stop ODSP Discrimination and take responsibility for his policy decisions.

So, now Premier Dalton Chicken McGuinty must choose to violate or respect my/Thomasson’s Charter Rights. If Dalton Chickens out and refuses to punish me/Thomasson it proves Thomasson has blocked ODSP quasi-judicial prosecution. If ODSP does punish Thomasson I will press my ODSP Charter Challenge  to a real court and prove the ODSP Act violates the Charter.

My/Thomasson’s last ODSP Charter Challenge ended when I was found innocent by the SBT (Social Benefits Tribunal). So I am starting all over again with basically the same Charter argument and  one new important point.

I/Thomasson now argue the Ontario Government has a Constitutional Obligation to accommodate me by refering my case to a venue (Ontario Superior Court) that can hear my ODSP Charter Challenge Defense. If/When my ODSP Charter Challenge is heard by a Court that can rule on it I/Thomasson will easily win.

Under current legislation the SBT can listen to Thomasson’s correct Charter Challenge Defense but cannot officially “hear” Thomasson’s Charter Defense. It is a kind of deliberate deafness that allows ODSP to ignore the Charter and discriminate against Disabled People without ever officially “hearing” a Charter Defense.

So, I/Thomasson am guilty of violating the ODSP Act by refusing to verify my Farm Income, and I/Thomasson am innocent because the ODSP Act violates the Charter.

The Catch-22 is that ODSP and the SBT can listen to my Charter Defense but cannot “hear” my Charter Defense and must convict me as if I had made no defense at all. However, if the adjudicating body could “hear” my/Thomasson’s Charter Defense I/Thomasson would certainly be found innocent because the ODSP Act violates the Charter.

We know Thomasson’s ODSP Charter Challenge is correct because no one has proved Thomasson wrong for 1,282 days. So the Ontario Government has a duty to accommodate Thomasson’s legitimate Charter Challenge Defense by sending Thomasson’s case to a adjudicator with the authority to hear Thomasson’s Charter Defense. Otherwise the SBT will certainly ignore Thomasson’s Charter Defense and convict him without regard for Thomasson’s Charter Rights.

I will deliver my formal refusal to verify my income to the Cornwall ODSP office thursday July 22, the “Director” must  make the “Director’s Decision” within 10 days.  Any “Director’s Decision” to convict me/Thomasson of violating the ODSP Act  will automatically violate my/Thomasson’s Charter Right to Equality.

So what will it be Dalton? Are you going to block my ODSP conviction and stonewall my/Thomasson’s Charter Challenge or will the Ontario Government deliberately violate my Charter Rights simply because I am a medically disabled person on ODSP.

The only other option is to immediately stop all ODSP Act Discrimination against Ontario’s Disabled People and avoid creating a Charter Test Case against the ODSP Act. The first step is a simple Cabinet order to immediately suspend all ODSP Director’s Decision prosecutions.

Dalton please stop Chickening Out, do the right thing and immediately stop all ODSP Act discrimination against Ontario’s Disabled People.

I/Thomasson formally offer to completely submit to the ODSP Act and pay $1,000 costs as soon as someone, anyone, even anonymously proves the ODSP Act fully complies with the Charter. No one has answered my Challenge for 1,282 days. Since no one can prove the ODSP Act complies with the Charter we can be certain the ODSP Act  violates the Charter and discriminates against Ontario’s Disabled People.

As you read this ODSP is discriminating against some  of your Disable Constituents. Prove Me Wrong, Dalton Can’t.

Sincerely David Thomasson

greendave42@yahoo.ca

David Thomasson wins SBT Appeal, Premier Dalton Chicken McGuinty Chickened Out, ducking Thomasson’s Charter Challenge. Officially I, David Thomasson, won because ODSP had no evidence. Really I was punished to block my Charter Challenge against the ODSP Act. In Canada I can only appeal a Charter Question if I am being punished.  Upholding my appeal is the best way to prevent a Court Challenge that would strike down the ODSP Act. The SBT Decision is posted in my links.

The Kicker is that the SBT Chair knows I am guilty, I testified that I have not verified my income to ODSP since 2005. Under the ODSP Act,  the SBT can convict me based on “balance of probabilities”, anyone else would have lost their appeal. I am guilty but ODSP chose not to punish me.

I, David Thomasson,  Triple Dare Premier Dalton Chicken McGuinty to punish me under the ODSP Act and face my Charter Challenge. I have not verified my income to ODSP since 2005,  I am guilty under the ODSP Act, anyone else would have lost their benefits.

I , David Thomasson, offer to immediately submit to the ODSP Act as soon as one person, any person, even anonymously, proves the ODSP Act fully complies with the Charter. No one can do it, so we know the ODSP Act violates the Charter.

So why is a guilty man let go free? Political Interference and a desire to cover-up ongoing ODSP Discrimination against Ontario’s Disabled People. Right Now Dalton’s government is actively discriminating against disabled people on ODSP, Prove Me Wrong, Dalton Can’t.

I, David Thomasson, figure I have successfully jammed the gears of ODSP persecution and I am now immune from ODSP punishment. Of course I have to obey all normal laws, I always did,  but I do not have to fear unconstitutional persecution under the ODSP Act.

So, to prove I am immune from ODSP Act Discrimination I Triple Dare Premier Dalton Chicken McGuinty to punish me under the ODSP Act and face my Charter Challenge.

The ODSP Act is unconstitutional and violates the Charter Rights of Ontario’s Disabled People. As  you read this ODSP is still persecuting vulnerable disabled people. Prove Me Wrong Dalton Can’t.

I, David Thomasson, Triple Dare Premier Dalton Chicken McGuinty to publicly defend the ODSP Act or immediately stop all ODSP Discrimination.

I, David Thomasson, will continue to taunt Premier Dalton Chicken McGuinty as a Chicken and a Coward refusing to defend his government’s actions, and as a Bully using massive government power to persecute Ontario’s Disabled People.

I, David Thomasson, argue that if my statements are not Libel, Slander, Malicous or Defamatory they must be true.  Right Now Premier Dalton Chicken McGuinty’s government is actively enforcing ODSP Discrimination and violating the Charter Rights of Ontario’s Disabled People.

 Please immediately stop all ODSP Act Discrimination against Ontario’s Disabled People.

Sincerely David Thomasson

Respected MPPs, No one, not even anonymously has defended the constitutionality of the ODSPA.  Premier Dalton McGuinty, Minister Meilleur, and Mr. Michael Doi, Constitutional Law Expert in the Ontario’s Attorney General’s Office refuse to  defend the ODSPA.

Right Now the ODSPA is the single largest source of discrimination against Ontario’s Disabled People. It’s True, ask McGuinty, Meilleur, or Doi.

Right Now ODSP is actively discriminating against some of your Disabled Constituents.  I am only stating the truth to you.%

1075 Bay St, 7th Floor

Toronto Ontario

M5S 2B1

Fax 416-326-5135

Re: David Thomasson Social Benefits Tribunal Appeal SBT File # 0911-10187

Title:Thomasson Document 1 SBT File #0911-10187

Attention: The Registrar

Please accept this submission as part of my appeal, SBT file #0911-10187

I, David Thomasson, am a self-represented appellant appealing my recent ODSP suspension. I am making a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenge against the Ontario Disability Support Program Act (ODSPA). My Social Benefits Tribunal appeal defense is that the legislated ODSPA quasi-judicial Director’s Decision and Internal Review Process violates my rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms sections 7, 11(d), 15(1)

I, David Thomasson, am innocent because the ODSPA Director’s Decision and Internal Review Process violates Thomasson’s Charter Right to Equality. Thomasson asks the Chair of the Social Benefits Tribunal to immediately overturn the Nov 24, 2009 Director’s Decision against Thomasson because the process used to make it is unconstitutional and violates Thomasson’s Charter Rights.

I, David Thomasson, am a passionate supporter of Universal Human Rights. I argue that to protect the human rights of any person we must protect the human rights of every person. The violation of some people’s Human Right to equality endangers every person’s human right to equality. I am not seeking compensation or tangible benefit of any kind as part of my Charter Challenge against the ODSPA. I am simply trying to protect the Human Rights of vulnerable disabled people. My Charter Challenge against the ODSPA is necessary only because the Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal Ontario Government refuses to immediately voluntarily end all ODSPA discrimination against Ontario’s Disabled people.

I, David Thomasson, am deliberately refusing to verify my income to ODSP in order to be a test case of the constitutionality of the ODSPA. I offer to resolve my Social Benefits Tribunal Appeal by providing complete income verification to ODSP immediately after receiving clear proof that the ODSPA is constitutional. However, without proof the ODSPA is constitutional I, David Thomasson, will continue opposing the ODSPA and champion the Charter Rights of Disabled People on ODSP.

I, David Thomasson, continue to make every reasonable effort to resolve my Charter Challenge against the ODSPA. I offer to immediately resolve my Social Benefits Tribunal appeal and pay $1,000 costs as soon as anyone, someone, clearly proves the ODSPA Director’s Decision and Internal Review punishment and prosecution process complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Despite my many letters, emails, voicemails, media articles, and internet articles to all levels of ODSP and the Ontario Government I cannot find anyone to defend the constitutionality of ODSPA. I am forced to conclude that the ODSPA violates my Charter Right to Equality. As a Citizen I am morally compelled to insist on full Equality for myself and all other Disabled People on ODSPA. I will persist until the ODSPA is struck down in Ontario Superior Court, or someone, anyone, even anonymously proves the ODSPA complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I ask that the Ontario Government immediately voluntarily end all ODSPA discrimination against Ontario’s Disabled People.

I await the Ontario Government’s comprehensive defense of the constitutional legitimacy of the ODSPA.

I consider my Social Benefits Tribunal hearing a necessary preliminary step before filing my Charter Challenge in Ontario Superior Court. My purpose is to create a comprehensive record of proceedings to be used in Superior Court and prove the ODSPA is unconstitutional.

Please inform your legal staff of my Charter Defense and identify the lawyer representing the Director in my case.

Please specify with whom, and at which address, I must file copies of each document as my appeal proceeds. I request that receipt of each document be verified by a reply confirming it is now part of my appeal file. I insist all communications be only in writing to create a verifiable record. I do not have a fax machine.

Please schedule 1 full day to hear my Charter Challenge defence against the Director’s Decision to punish me.

Please provide a full recorded transcript of my SBT hearing.

Please allow the public and news media to attend my SBT hearing and publicly report what occurs.

Please specify all submission dates related to my Social Benefits Tribunal hearing.

I will file my Charter Challenge against the ODSPA in Ontario Superior Court immediately after receiving the Tribunal’s written decision on my appeal. I will contend my SBT hearing is clear proof that the legislated quasi-judicial ODSPA Director’s Decision and Internal Review Process violates my Charter Right to Equality. I will ask the Ontario Superior Court to immediately hear my Charter question rather than force me to repeat my entire defense at a SBT reconsideration hearing.

I am making a very public challenge to the ODSPA, using the news media, the internet, the political process, the quasi-judicial process, and the judicial process to publicly prove the ODSPA violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Please see my website www.greendave.ca for more information. Please note that I continue to mock Premier McGuinty on www.greendave.ca as clear proof that my statements are not libellous so they must be true.

I offer to pay $1,000 costs and immediately submit to ODSPA authority as soon as someone, anyone, even anonymously clearly proves how the ODSPA fully complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I am requesting certified genuine and complete copies of 3 files. These files are needed 1) as evidence to defend myself and 2) to prepare a comprehensive record of proceedings. The materials provided by ODSP will be submitted as part of the record of proceedings attached to the Charter Challenge Thomasson will file against the ODSPA in Ontario Superior Court immediately after receiving the Tribunal’s Decision on Thomasson’s Social Benefits Tribunal appeal. It is important that ODSP provide only certified genuine and complete copies of each file.

Please instruct the Director to immediately provide Thomasson with a certified genuine and complete copy of the ODSP file on the November 24, 2009 Director’s Decision against Thomasson re:112678651 made by Director Wenda Hodsdon. Please clearly explain how the Nov 24, 2009 Director’s Decision complies with ODSP Directive 13.1 Notice of Decision and Internal Review Process, and ODSP Directive 13.2 Appeals. Please clearly explain how the process used to make the Nov 24, 2009 Director’s Decision complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Please instruct the Director to immediately provide Thomasson with a certified genuine and complete copy of the ODSP file on the December 7, 2009 Internal Review Decision against Thomasson re:112678651 made by Income Support Specialist Julie Langlois. Please clearly explain how the Dec 7, 2009 Internal Review Decision complies with ODSP Directive 13.1 Notice of Decision and Internal Review Process and ODSP Directive 13.2 Appeals. Please clearly explain how the process used to make the Dec 7, 2009 Innternal Review Decision complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Please instruct The Director to immediately provide Thomasson with a certified genuine and complete copy of his entire ODSP file.Thomasson requires this information to properly prepare his Social Benefits Tribunal Appeal, and intends to submit it as evidence in his Ontario Superior Court Charter challenge against the ODSPA

It has been over 60 days since the Director first punished Thomasson, still the Director has provided none of the evidence used to convict Thomasson. It is very difficult to appeal a conviction without access to the evidence.

Please instruct the Director to immediately provide Thomasson with all evidence, files, communications, correspondence, and records relevant to Thomasson’s case. I need these materials in order to prepare a adequate defence against the Director’s Decision. Under the ODSPA I am required to provide reasons why the Director’s Decision is wrong, the burden of Reverse Onus, forces me to prove I am innocent, and makes obtaining all evidence in my case vital for a successful appeal. It is very difficult to prove a decision is wrong when all the evidence is withheld from the appellant.

Please immediately instruct “The Director” to fully answer Thomasson’s disclosure questions. Thomasson needs this information to properly prepare his complete Social Benefits Tribunal Appeal and Charter Challenge. The materials provided by ODSP will be submitted as part of the record of proceedings attached to the Charter Challenge Thomasson will file against the ODSPA in Ontario Superior Court immediately after receiving the Tribunal’s Decision on Thomasson’s Social Benefits Tribunal appeal.

I am using the Social Benefits Tribunal Appeal process to try and cause ODSP Staff and the Ontario Government to explain the constitutionality of each step in the ODSP Director’s Decision and Internal Review quasi-judicial process. Thomasson seeks to determine the constitutional validity of the ODSPA. Ideally someone, the Minister, the Ministry, the ODSP Director, the SBT Chair, the Attorney General’s Office, or Premier McGuinty will finally clearly explain how the ODSPA complies with the Charter.

Please advise the SBT Member and the Director’s Representative, and any other parties or legal representatives at Thomasson’s Tribunal Hearing that Thomasson will question them directly in order to determine the constitutionality of the ODSPA.

I will continue to publish everything about my case, including all government replies, on www.greendave.ca, to support my demand for a public Social Benefits Tribunal hearing and to expose the details of ODSPA discrimination against Ontario’s Disabled People. Throughout this project I will use the media, the internet, the ODSP process, the judicial process, and the political process to publicly expose and end all ODSPA discrimination against Ontario’s Disabled People. I sincerely offer to stop all my opposition to the ODSPA immediately if anyone, anywhere, proves the ODSPA is constitutional

I swear and affirm to use only peaceful and legal means to oppose ODSPA discrimination against Ontario’s Disabled people.

I offer to correct any factual errors in this document.

Please immediately confirm in writing that the Tribunal has received this submission.

Sincerely

David Thomasson

P.O. Box 187

St.Andrews West Ontario

K0C 2A0

www.greendave.ca

Respected MPPs, here is the revised ODSP Director’s Discrimination Proof that I am submitting to the Social Benefits Tribunal today. I made only minor changes.

To: The Registrar

Social Benefits Tribunal

1075 Bay St 7th floor

Toronto Ontario

M5S 2B1

March 3, 2010

Registrar: Please accept this submission as part of my appeal. SBT Appeal file # 0911-10187

Title: Thomasson Document 2 ODSPA Director’s Decision Discrimination Proof SBT File # 0911-10187

Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal Ontario Government via the Ontario Disability Support Program Act (ODSPA) is the single largest source of discrimination against Ontario’s Disabled People. The ODSPA 1997 legislated systemic discrimination against Disabled People on the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). Every ODSPA prescribed barrier and restriction that applies only to Disabled People on ODSP is discrimination because of medical disability. Every aspect of ODSPA discrimination is a political choice prescribed by the Ontario Government. Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal Government is fully accountable for ongoing ODSPA discrimination.

The ODSPA Section 1 (c) & (d) states: “The purpose of this Act is to establish a program that, (c) effectively serves persons with disabilities who need assistance, and (d) is accountable to the taxpayers of Ontario.”

I, David Thomasson, a Disabled Person on ODSP, a Ontario Taxpayer and a Canadian Citizen, Challenge Premier Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal Ontario Government to publicly prove the ODSPA fully complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or immediately end all ODSP Discrimination against Ontario’s Disabled People www.greendave.ca Prove Me Wrong, Dalton Can’t! The ODSPA violates the Charter and discriminates against Ontario’s Disabled People.

Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal Ontario Government is actively enforcing ODSPA discrimination and deliberately violating the Charter Rights [Sections 7, 11(d), 15(1),] of Ontario’s Disabled People on ODSP. ODSP staff use the delegated power of Minister Madeline Meilleur, the Minister of Community and Social Services, to violate the Charter Rights of Ontario’s Disabled People on ODSP. The ODSP can only operate with the deliberately delegated power of Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal Ontario Government. The Choice and Responsibility to immediately end all ODSPA discrimination lies solely in the hands of Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals. Urgent Political Action is needed to immediately end all ODSPA Discrimination against Ontario’s Disabled People.

I continue to mock Premier Dalton Chicken McGuinty on my website www.greendave.ca My statements are not slander or libel so they must be true. I will immediately stop mocking Premier Dalton Chicken McGuinty as soon as someone, anyone prove the ODSPA fully complies with the Charter.

The only essential criteria to be on the Ontario Disability Support Program is that the Ontario Government must agree the person is medically disabled. Under the ODSPA only a medical professional can verify a person is ‘a person with a disability’ [ODSPA Sched B, Section 3.1; ODSPA Sched B, Section 4.(1), (a) & (c); ODSPA part VII section 46.(1).]

Financial need is a secondary and somewhat flexible ODSP eligibility criteria. The ODSPA exempts significant income and assets from ODSP financial eligibility decisions. The ODSPA sections 41-43 prescribes over 4 pages of income exemptions. ODSPA Asset exemptions allow a Disabled Person to financially qualify for ODSP even though his/her total real assets exceed ODSP limits. The ODSPA Part IV Sec 27 & 28 prescribes over 20 categories of exempt assets. A Disabled Person can possess up to $100,000 of exempt real assets and still qualify for ODSP.

Every barrier and restriction that applies only to verified medically disabled people on ODSP is discrimination solely because of medical disability, not financial need.

The ODSPA legislated a Quasi-Judicial Reverse Onus Director’s Decision conviction, punishment and appeal process that violates the Charter Rights of every Disabled Person punished under the ODSPA. The Disabled Person must immediately use the Quasi-Judicial appeal process despite violations of his/her Charter Rights by the Quasi-Judicial ODSPA process. The Quasi-Judicial ODSPA process convicts and punishes disabled people using the force of law without obeying the rule of law. The Quasi-Judicial ODSPA process does not obey the rules and responsibilities of the Ontario Superior Court, nor the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. ODSPA Director’s Decision conviction and punishment decisions proceed on a negative option basis. If at any point a disabled person fails to appeal a Director’s Decision, the Director’s Decision quickly becomes final with the force of a decision by the Ontario Superior Court and cannot be appealed further. ODSP Bureaucrats exercise the force of law without obeying the rule of law. Prove Me Wrong! Dalton Can’t www.greendave.ca

The ODSPA empowers the Director and delegated staff to use statutory power of decision to judge, convict, and punish a disabled ODSP recipient with the force of law without obeying the rule of law.

The Statutory Powers Procedure Act Section 1 Interpretation states:

“1. (1) In this Act,

’statutory power of decision’ means a power or right, conferred by or under a statute, to make a decision deciding or prescribing,

(a) the legal rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties or liabilities of any person or party, or

(b) the eligibility of any person to receive, or to the continuation of, a benefitor license, whether the person is legally entitled thereto or not.”

The ODSPA never allows a Disabled Person to defend as innocent, nor have a public hearing. The initial ODSP Director’s Decision changes the Disabled Person from a innocent defendent to a guilty appellant burdened by Reverse Onus. The Disabled Person cannot defend against ODSP charges until after judged guilty by a ODSP Director’s Decision and informed by Notice of Decision. The ODSPA denies Disabled People the basic right to publicly defend as innocent until proven guilty.

The Disabled Person is always wrongly convicted by the ODSP Director’s Decision before he/she is allowed to defend against ODSP accusations. The punishment decided on by the Director begins immediately and continues while the Disabled Person appeals the Director’s Decision. Prove Me Wrong! Dalton Can’t www.greendave.ca

The ODSPA Director’s Decision and Internal Review process obstructs appeals by withholding essential information from the Disabled Appellant. The Director is not required to provide the Disabled Appellant with the evidence, transcript, or complete file of the Director’s case against the Disabled Person despite the Internal Review requirement that the Disabled Appellant must provide reasons to prove the Director wrong or lose the Internal Review Appeal and be forced to appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal or accept the Director’s Decision as final. Prove Me Wrong! Dalton Can’t www.greendave.ca

The Disabled Appellant must apply for a Internal Review and then apply for a Social Benefits Tribunal Hearing without full disclosure of the ODSP Director’s case against him/her. The Disabled Person must appeal as a guilty appellant and provide reasons to disprove the Director’s Decision before the Director provides the evidence used to convict the Disabled Person. Prove Me Wrong! Dalton Can’t www.greendave.ca

ODSP staff release very little information about the case and evidence used to convict the Disabled Person, prior to receiving the Social Benefit Tribunal’s (SBT) request for the Director’s written submission after the Disabled Person has already appealed to the SBT.

ODSP Appeals Directive 13.2 pg 6 “Written Submissions: The Director’s written submission must be filed no later than thirty calendar days following the receipt of a copy of the Notice of Appeal and request for a written submission from the SBT (Social Benefits Tribunal). They are deemed to be received three working days after

mailing.”

The initial ODSP Director’s Decision against the Disabled ODSP Recipient is made by a vague closed door process. The Disabled Person cannot attend or be represented at the first “Director’s Decision”. The ODSPA Director’s Decision process excludes the Disabled Person, the defendant’s lawyer, defense witnesses, the news media and the public. ODSP staff use the Quasi-Judicial Administrative Review process to judge the disabled person in absentia, in secret, without independent observers and without a recorded transcript. The Internal Review process repeats these barriers with the exception that the defendant’s representative can attend the Internal Review. The ODSPA quasi-judicial Director’s Decision and Internal Review prosecution and punishment process exercises the force of law without obeying the rule of law. Prove Me Wrong! Dalton Can’t www.greendave.ca

The ODSPA quasi-judicial Director’s Decision prosecution and punishment process denies Disabled People:

- the right to notice of charges before conviction

- the right to counsel before conviction

- the right to defend before conviction

- the right to plead innocent before conviction

- the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses and evidence before conviction

- the right to a public hearing before conviction

Prove Me Wrong! Dalton Can’t www.greendave.ca

The ODSP Director’s Decision can punish a disabled person retroactively.

The ODSPA Schedule B Section 20 (1) “When Decision takes effect” states: ” 20.(1) A decision of the Director shall be effective from the date fixed by the Director, whether it is before, on or after the date of the decision.”

Neither the ODSPA nor ODSP Directive 13.1 Notice of Decision and Internal Review Process nor ODSP Directive 13.2 Appeals specify fairness standards for protecting the Human Rights of the Disabled Defendant when making a Director’s Decision. Apparently it is up to individual staff to decide for themselves what is a fair way to determine a Director’s Decision.

ODSP Directive 13.2 p2 “Standards:Appropriate documentation must be on file demonstrating that the decision is consistent with legislation and regulations; Decisions must be made in a fair and consistent manner, clearly related to eligibility. An applicant/recipient must be provided with written notice of any decision affecting eligibility for or the amount of income support. The notice must provide reasons for the decision and advise of the availability of an internal review and the subsequent right to appeal to the SBT.”

ODSP Notice of Decision and Internal Review Process Directive 13.1 pg1 “Intent of Policy” does not specify fairness or due process as a intent of the ODSP Director’s Decision and Internal Review process. Nor does Directive 13.1 specify how the rights of the Disabled Person are protected during the Director’s Decision process.

ODSP Directive 13.1 pg1 “Intent of Policy: To ensure that applicants/recipients receive clear written notice of decisions made including the Internal Review process. Internal Reviews are intended to provide a timely review of the original decision in an effort to resolve issues at the local level before appeals to the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) are launched.”

The “Director” is not just a single senior manager. The “Director” is also a class of ODSP staff. The Director, appointed by the Minister, administers and enforces the ODSPA by delegating power to ODSP staff. ODSP staff across Ontario exercise the power of the Ontario Government to enforce the OSDPA. The ODSPA gives the Director and delegated staff the power to investigate, judge, convict, and punish a Disabled ODSP Recipient before informing him/her of ODSP charges and evidence against the disabled person.

ODSPA Schedule B Section 37. (1)-(4) states: “37.(1) The Director shall exercise the powers and duties conferred or imposed by this Act and the Regulations.

(2) If the Director is absent or unable to act or the office of the Director is vacant, the employee of the Ministry designated by the Minister has and shall exercise the powers and duties of the Director.

(3) The Director, may, in writing, authorize a person or class of persons to exercise any of the powers of duties of the Director under his/her supervision and direction.

(4) A decision made by a person exercising the Director’s powers or duties under subsection (3) shall be deemed to be a decision of the Director.”

Unless immediately appealed ODSP Director’s Decisions and Internal Review Decisions are final and equal in force of law to decisions by the Ontario Superior Court. The prescribed ODSP process does not obey the rules and responsibilities of the Ontario Superior Court, nor the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. For example the initial Director’s Decision is made without allowing any form of defence by the disabled person.

The ODSPA Schedule B, Section 16.(2) & (3) states:

“16.(2) A decision determining that an overpayment exists shall be final and enforceable against the Recipient as if it were an order of the Ontario Court (General Division)…”

“16.(3) … The Decision of the Tribunal shall be final and enforceable against the recipient as if it were an order of the Ontario Court (General Division).”

The Ontario Court (General Division) was renamed the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on April 19, 1999.

The ODSPA “Notice of Decision” is vital information. Only the Notice of Decision informs the Disabled Person that he/she has been convicted under the ODSPA by an appealable Decision of the Director. The 30 calendar day deadline to apply for an Internal Review to appeal the Director’s Decision starts automatically when the Notice of Decision is deemed received.

The ODSPA section 19 states:” The Director shall give notice to the applicant or recipient of a decision that may be appealed and the notice shall advise the applicant or recipient that he or she may request an internal review of it.”

Directive 13.1 p1-2 “Written Notice of Decisions: All decisions affecting eligibility for or the amount of income support must be communicated in writing providing the following information: the decision; the effective date of the decision; the legislative authority for the decision;reasons for the decision; the right to request an internal review and the timeframe for requesting it; where applicable, the subsequent right to appeal to SBT”

The Director is not required to confirm delivery of the Notice of Decision to the Disabled Person. The Director is only required to mail the Notice of Decision. The Notice of Decision is deemed received 3 days after the date of mailing.

The ODSPA Section 56.(1) states:”A Notice under section 19 of the Act shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the applicant or recipient personally or by prepaid mail to the individual’s last known address.”

The ODSPA Schedule B Section 50 states:”If notice is given by ordinary mail it shall be deemed received on the Third Day following the date of mailing.”

ODSP Standard Practice is to mail the Director’s Decision and Internal Review Decision. ODSPA appeal deadlines begin automatically when the Notice is deemed received.

Directive 13.1 p2 “Written Notice of Decision: Under the ODSP Act, notices are deemed to be received three working days after

mailing. It is assumed that correspondence is mailed on the day after it is dated.”

The ODSPA Section 58 states: ” The prescribed time for requesting an Internal Review is 30 days from the day the Decision is received or deemed to have been received under Section 50 of the Act.”

The ODSPA Section 20.(3)(a),(b) states: “20.(3) A Director’s Decision is final

(a) when the prescribed time for requesting an internal review expires, if no internal review is requested within that time; or

(b) on the earlier of the day the prescribed time for requesting an internal review expires and the day the internal review is completed, if an internal review has been requested.”

The Disabled Person must immediately appeal the Director’s Decision by requesting an Internal Review of the Decision before the 30 calendar day appeal deadline expires or else the Director’s Decision is final and cannot be appealed.

The ODSPA Schedule B Section 22.(1): “No appeal may be commenced unless an internal review has been requested.”

Directive 13.2 Appeals pg1″Summary of Policy: No appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal may be commenced by an applicant or recipient unless an internal review has been requested and completed, or has been requested and the time period for the review has elapsed. An appeal should be made within the prescribed period after an internal review.”

The Disabled Appellant’s Internal Review appeal application must provide reasons against the Director’s Decision yet ODSP does not fully disclose the evidence used to convict the Disabled Person until after the Internal Review has been completed and the Disabled Person has been approved for a Social Benefits Tribunal hearing at which the Disabled Person must defend as a guilty appellant under the burden of Reverse Onus.

The Internal Review Decision process is an “informal administrative process” that exercises the force of law without obeying the rule of law.

The ODSPA Schedule B Section 22.(4) states: “The Statutory Powers Procedure Act does not apply to an internal review.” The ODSPA does not specify alternative standards to protect the rights of the Disabled Appellant.

Directive 13.2 pg2 “Intent of Policy: To provide an applicant/recipient with the opportunity to appeal decisions affecting eligibility for or the amount of income support (e.g. decisions to suspend, cancel, reduce or deny income support). To ensure that the appeal process is consistent with the legislation, regulations and policy direction.” Significantly there is no reference to fairness, due process, the SPPA, the rule of law, or protecting the Disabled Person’s Rights during the Internal Review.

Directive 13.1 pg4 Internal Review: “The internal review is an informal, administrative process”.

The Internal Review Decision is vital information for the Disabled Person. Only the Internal Review Decision informs the Disabled Person that he/she has lost his/her Internal Review Appeal and must appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal within 30 days or the Director’s Decision is final and cannot be appealed. Standard ODSP practice is to mail the Internal Review Decision, it is deemed received after 3 days. The 30 Day SBT appeal deadline begins automatically.

The ODSPA section 59.(1) states: “The prescribed time for completing an internal review is 10 days from the day the Director receives the request for the internal review.”

The ODSPA Section 60.(1) states: ” A decision made on an Internal Review shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally…or sent by regular mail to his or her last known address.”

ODSP Directive 13.1 pg 2 “request for internal review An applicant/recipient must request the internal review, in writing, within thirty (30)calendar days from the day the decision is received. The ODSP Act deems that notice is received three days after mailing.”

 Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal Ontario Government via the Ontario Disability Support Program Act (ODSPA) is the single largest source of discrimination against Ontario’s Disabled People. The ODSPA 1997 legislated systemic discrimination against Disabled People on the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). Every ODSPA prescribed barrier and restriction that applies only to Disabled People on ODSP is discrimination because of medical disability. Every aspect of ODSPA discrimination is a political choice prescribed by the Ontario Government. Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal Government is fully accountable for ongoing ODSPA discrimination.

The ODSPA Section 1 (c) & (d) states: “The purpose of this Act is to establish a program that, (c) effectively serves persons with disabilities who need assistance, and (d) is accountable to the taxpayers of Ontario.”

I, David Thomasson, a Disabled Person on ODSP, a Ontario Taxpayer and a Canadian Citizen, Challenge Premier Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal Ontario Government to publicly prove the ODSPA fully complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or immediately end all ODSP Discrimination against Ontario’s Disabled People www.greendave.ca Prove Me Wrong, Dalton Can’t! The ODSPA violates the Charter and discriminates against Ontario’s Disabled People.

Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal Ontario Government is actively enforcing ODSPA discrimination and deliberately violating the Charter Rights [Sections 7, 11(d), 15(1),] of Ontario’s Disabled People on ODSP. ODSP staff use the delegated power of Minister Madelline Meilleur, the Minister of Community and Social Services, to violate the Charter Rights of Ontario’s Disabled People on ODSP. The ODSP can only operate with the deliberately delegated power of Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal Government. The Choice and Responsibility to immediately end all ODSPA discrimination lies solely in the hands of Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals. Urgent Political Action is needed to immediately end all ODSPA Discrimination against Ontario’s Disabled People.

The only essential criteria to be on the Ontario Disability Support Program is that the Ontario Government must agree the person is medically disabled. Under the ODSPA only a medical professional can verify a person is ‘a person with a disability’ [ODSPA Sched B, Section 3.1; ODSPA Sched B, Section 4.(1), (a) & (c); ODSPA part VII section 46.(1).]

Financial need is a secondary and somewhat flexible ODSP eligibility criteria. The ODSP Act exempts significant income and assets from ODSP financial eligibility decisions. The ODSPA sections 41-43 prescribes over 4 pages of income exemptions. ODSPA Asset exemptions allow a disabled person to financially qualify for ODSP even though his/her total real assets exceed ODSP limits. The ODSPA Part IV Sec 27 & 28 prescribes over 20 categories of exempt assets. A disabled person can possess up to $100,000 of exempt real assets and still qualify for ODSP.

Every barrier and restriction that applies only to verfied medically disabled people on ODSP is discrimination solely because of medical disability, not financial need.

The ODSPA legislated a Quasi-Judicial Reverse Onus Director’s Decision conviction, punishment and appeal process that violates the Charter Rights of every Disabled Person punished under the ODSPA. The Disabled Person must immediately use the Quasi-Judicial appeal process despite violations of his/her Charter Rights by the Quasi-Judicial ODSPA process. The Quasi-Judicial ODSPA process convicts and punishes disabled people using the force of law without obeying the rule of law. The Quasi-Judicial ODSPA process does not obey the rules and responsibilities of the Ontario Superior Court, nor the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. ODSPA Director’s Decision conviction and punishment decisions proceed on a negative option basis. If at any point a disabled person fails to appeal a Director’s Decision, the Director’s Decision quickly becomes final with the force of a decision by the Ontario Superior Court and cannot be appealed further. ODSP Bureaucrats exercise the force of law without obeying the rule of law. Prove Me Wrong! Dalton Can’t www.greendave.ca

The ODSPA empowers the Director and delegated staff to use statutory power of decision to judge, convict, and punish a disabled ODSP recipient with the force of law without obeying the rule of law.

The Statutory Powers Procedure Act Section 1 Interpretation states:

“1. (1) In this Act, ’statutory power of decision’ means a power or right, conferred by or under a statute, to make a decision deciding or prescribing,

(a) the legal rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties or liabilities of any person or party, or

(b) the eligibility of any person to receive, or to the continuation of, a benefitor license, whether the person is legally entitled thereto or not.”

The ODSPA never allows a Disabled Person to defend as innocent, nor have a public hearing. The initial ODSP Director’s Decision changes the Disabled Person from a innocent defendent to a guilty appellant burdened by Reverse Onus. The Disabled Person cannot defend against ODSP charges until after judged guilty by a ODSP Director’s Decision and informed by Notice of Decision. The ODSPA denies Disabled People the basic right to publicly defend as innocent until proven guilty.

The Disabled Person is always wrongly convicted by the ODSP Director’s Decision before he/she is allowed to defend against ODSP accusations. The punishment decided on by the Director begins immediately and continues while the Disabled Person appeals the Director’s Decision. Prove Me Wrong! Dalton Can’t www.greendave.ca

The ODSPA Director’s Decision and Internal Review process obstructs appeals by withholding essential information from the Disabled Appellant. The Director is not required to provide the Disabled Appellant with the evidence, transcript, or complete file of the Director’s case against the Disabled Person despite the Internal Review requirement that the Disabled Appellant must provide reasons to prove the Director wrong or lose the Internal Review Appeal and be forced to appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal or accept the Director’s Decision as final. Prove Me Wrong! Dalton Can’t www.greendave.ca

The Disabled Appellant must apply for a Internal Review and then apply for a Social Benefits Tribunal Hearing without full disclosure of the ODSP Director’s case against him/her. The Disabled Person must appeal as a guilty appellant and provide reasons to disprove the Director’s Decision before the Director provides the evidence used to convict the Disabled Person. Prove Me Wrong! Dalton Can’t www.greendave.ca

ODSP staff release very little information about the case and evidence used to convict the Disabled Person, prior to receiving the Social Benefit Tribunal’s (SBT) request request for the Director’s written submission after the Disabled Person has already appealed to the SBT.

ODSP Appeals Directive 13.2 pg 6 “Written Submissions: The Director’s written submission must be filed no later than thirty calendar days following the receipt of a copy of the Notice of Appeal and request for a written submission from the SBT (Social Benefits Tribunal). They are deemed to be received three working days after mailing.”

The initial ODSP Director’s Decision against the Disabled ODSP Recipient is made by a vague closed door process. The Disabled Person cannot attend or be represented at the first “Director’s Decision”. The ODSPA Director’s Decision process excludes the Disabled Person, the defendant’s lawyer, defense witnesses, the news media and the public. ODSP staff use the Quasi-Judicial Administrative Review process to judge the disabled person in absentia, in secret, without independent observers and without a recorded transcript. The Internal Review process repeats these barriers with the exception that the defendant’s representative can attend the Internal Review. The ODSPA quasi-judicial Director’s Decision and Internal Review prosecution and punishment process exercises the force of law without obeying the rule of law. Prove Me Wrong! Dalton Can’t www.greendave.ca

The ODSPA quasi-judicial Director’s Decision prosecution and punishment process denies Disabled People:

- the right to notice of charges before conviction

- the right to counsel before conviction

- the right to defend before conviction

- the right to plead innocent before conviction

- the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses and evidence before conviction

- the right to a public hearing before conviction

Prove Me Wrong! Dalton Can’t www.greendave.ca

The ODSP Director’s Decision can punish a disabled person retroactively.

The ODSPA Schedule B Section 20 (1) “When Decision takes effect” states: ” 20.(1) A decision of the Director shall be effective from the date fixed by the Director, whether it is before, on or after the date of the decision.”

Neither the ODSPA nor ODSP Appeals Directive 13.2 specify fairness standards for protecting the Human Rights of the Disabled Defendant when making a Director’s Decision. Apparently it is up to individual staff to decide for themselves what is a fair way to determine a Director’s Decision.

ODSP Directive 13.2 p2 “Standards:Appropriate documentation must be on file demonstrating that the decision is consistent with legislation and regulations; Decisions must be made in a fair and consistent manner, clearly related to eligibility. An applicant/recipient must be provided with written notice of any decision affecting eligibility for or the amount of income support. The notice must provide reasons for the decision and advise of the availability of an internal review and the subsequent right to appeal to the SBT. Wherever possible, ODSP staff should attempt to resolve the issue with the applicant/recipient prior to a notice of decision being issued.”

ODSP Notice of Decision and Internal Review Process Directive 13.1 pg1 “Intent of Policy” does not specify fairness or due process as a intent of the ODSP Director’s Decision and Internal Review process. Nor does Directive 13.1 specify how the rights of the Disabled Person are protecteded during the Director’s Decision process.

ODSP Directive 13.1 pg1 “Intent of Policy: To ensure that applicants/recipients receive clear written notice of decisions made including the Internal Review process. Internal Reviews are intended to provide a timely review of the original decision in an effort to resolve issues at the local level before appeals to the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) are launched.”

The “Director” is not just a single senior manager. The “Director” is also a class of ODSP staff. The Director, appointed by the Minister, administers and enforces the ODSPA by delegating power to ODSP staff. ODSP staff across Ontario exercise the power of the Ontario Government to enforce the OSDPA. The ODSPA gives the Director and delegated staff the power to investigate, judge, convict, and punish a Disabled ODSP Recipient before informing him/her of ODSP charges and evidence against the disabled person.

ODSPA Schedule B Section 37. (1)-(4) states: “37.(1) The Director shall exercise the powers and duties conferred or imposed by this Act and the Regulations.

(2) If the Director is absent or unable to act or the office of the Director is vacant, the employee of the Ministry designated by the Minister has and shall exercise the powers and duties of the Director.

(3) The Director, may, in writing, authorize a person or class of persons to exercise any of the powers of duties of the Director under his/her supervision and direction.

(4) A decision made by a person exercising the Director’s powers or duties under subsection (3) shall be deemed to be a decision of the Director.”

Unless immediately appealed ODSP Director’s Decisions and Internal Review Decisions are final and equal in force of law to decisions by the Ontario Superior Court. The prescribed ODSP process does not obey the rules and responsibilities of the Ontario Superior Court, nor the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. For example the initial Director’s Decision is made without allowing any form of defence by the disabled person.

The ODSPA Schedule B, Section 16.(2) & (3) states:

“16.(2) A decision determining that an overpayment exists shall be final and enforceable against the Recipient as if it were an order of the Ontario Court (General Division)…”

“16.(3) … The Decision of the Tribunal shall be final and enforceable against the recipient as if it were an order of the Ontario Court (General Division).”

The Ontario Court (General Division) was renamed the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on April 19, 1999.

The ODSPA “Notice of Decision” is vital information. Only the Notice of Decision informs the Disabled Person that he/she has been convicted under the ODSPA by an appealable Decision of the Director. The 30 calendar day deadline to apply for an Internal Review to appeal the Director’s Decision starts automatically when the Notice of Decision is deemed received.

The ODSPA section 19 states:” The Director shall give notice to the applicant or recipient of a decision that may be appealed and the notice shall advise the applicant or recipient that he or she may request an internal review of it.”

Directive 13.1 p1-2 “Written Notice of Decisions: All decisions affecting eligibility for or the amount of income support must be communicated in writing providing the following information: the decision; the effective date of the decision; the legislative authority for the decision;reasons for the decision; the right to request an internal review and the timeframe for requesting it; where applicable, the subsequent right to appeal to SBT”

The Director is not required to confirm delivery of the Notice of Decision to the Disabled Person. The Director is only required to mail the Notice of Decision. The Notice of Decision is deemed received 3 days after the date of mailing.

The ODSPA Section 56.(1) states:”A Notice under section 19 of the Act shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the applicant or recipient personally or by prepaid mail to the individual’s last known address.”

The ODSPA Schedule B Section 50 states:”If notice is given by ordinary mail it shall be deemed received on the Third Day following the date of mailing.”

ODSP Standard Practice is to mail the Director’s Decision and Internal Review Decision. ODSPA appeal deadlines begin automatically when the Notice is deemed received.

Directive 13.1 p2 “Written Notice of Decision: Under the ODSP Act, notices are deemed to be received three working days after

mailing. It is assumed that correspondence is mailed on the day after it is dated.”

The ODSPA Section 58 states: ” The prescribed time for requesting an Internal Review is 30 days from the day the Decision is received or deemed to have been received under Section 50 of the Act.”

The ODSPA Section 20.(3)(a),(b) states: “20.(3) A Director’s Decision is final

(a) when the prescribed time for requesting an internal review expires, if no internal review is requested within that time; or

(b) on the earlier of the day the prescribed time for requesting an internal review expires and the day the internal review is completed, if an internal review has been requested.”

 The Disabled Person must immediately appeal the Director’s Decision by requesting an Internal Review of the Decision before the 30 calendar day appeal deadline expires or else the Director’s Decision is final and cannot be appealed.

The ODSPA Schedule B Section 22.(1): “No appeal may be commenced unless an internal review has been requested.”

Directive 13.2 Appeals pg1″Summary of Policy: No appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal may be commenced by an applicant or recipient unless an internal review has been requested and completed, or has been requested and the time period for the review has elapsed. An appeal should be made within the prescribed period after an internal review.”

 The Disabled Appellant’s Internal Review appeal application must provide reasons against the Director’s Decision yet ODSP does not fully disclose the evidence used to convict the Disabled Person until after the Internal Review has been completed and the Disabled Person has been approved for a Social Benefits Tribunal hearing at which the Disabled Person must defend as a guilty appellant under the burden of Reverse Onus.

The Internal Review Decision process is an “informal administrative process” that exercises the force of law without obeying the rule of law.

The ODSPA Schedule B Section 22.(4) states: “The Statutory Powers Procedure Act does not apply to an internal review.” The ODSPA does not specify alternative standards to protect the rights of the Disabled Appellant.

Directive 13.2 pg2 “Intent of Policy: To provide an applicant/recipient with the opportunity to appeal decisions affecting eligibility for or the amount of income support (e.g. decisions to suspend, cancel, reduce or deny income support). To ensure that the appeal process is consistent with the legislation, regulations and policy direction.” Significantly there is no reference to fairness, due process, the SPPA, the rule of law, or protecting the Disabled Person’s Rights during the Internal Review.

Directive 13.1 pg4 Internal Review: “The internal review is an informal, administrative process”.

The Internal Review Decision is vital information for the Disabled Person. Only the Internal Review Decision informs the Disabled Person that he/she has lost his/her Internal Review Appeal and must appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal within 30 days or the Director’s Decision is final and cannot be appealed. Standard ODSP practice is to mail the Internal Review Decision, it is deemed received after 3 days. The 30 Day SBT appeal deadline begins automatically.

The ODSPA section 59.(1) states: “The prescribed time for completing an internal review is 10 days from the day the Director receives the request for the internal review.”

The ODSPA Section 60.(1) states: ” A decision made on an Internal Review shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally…or sent by regular mail to his or her last known address.”

ODSP Directive 13.1 pg 2 “request for internal review An applicant/recipient must request the internal review, in writing, within thirty (30)calendar days from the day the decision is received. The ODSP Act deems that notice is received three days after mailing.”

 ODSP Directive 13.1 pg1 ” Application of Policy: Standards: All decisions can be subject to internal review; All information used in the Internal Review process must be kept on file; All decisions and reasons must be documented”ODSP Directive 13.1 Internal Review pg1 “Standards: There are three required time frames relevant to the internal review process:the applicant/recipient must request the internal review within thirty calendar days of receiving the written notice of decision; the ODSP office has ten calendar days to complete the internal review and issue its decision, and; the applicant/recipient has thirty calendar days from receiving the internal review

decision to launch an appeal to the SBT.

Directive 13.1 pg3 “The Internal Review: By policy, the reviewer must be authorized to conduct internal reviews and must have the same or higher level of decision-making authority as the original decision-maker. …Staff conducting the internal review must: document the internal review process; examine the case file; where appropriate, communicate directly with the client in effort to obtain any additional information which may resolve issues at this stage; examine the original decision to determine if it was: the appropriate decision based on all relevant facts (including additional information that the applicant/recipient may provide during the internal review process); consistent with legislation, regulations and policy directives; make a decision to confirm, overturn or vary the original decision and clearly summarize the reason(s) for arriving at that decision; provide the applicant/recipient with written notice of the internal review decision,including information on appeals to the Social Benefits Tribunal within the prescribed timeframes.”

The Internal Review Decision exercises the force of law against the Disabled Person. The Director is not required to verify delivery of the Internal Review Decision to the Disabled Person. The Director is only required to mail the Internal Review Decision. The ODSPA quasi-judicial appeal process allows the SBT appeal deadline to expire and the Decision to become final without first verfiying the Disabled Person received the Internal Review Decision.

The Internal Review Appeal Decision is final and equal in force of law to a decision by the Ontario Superior Court unless appealed immediately to the Social Benefits Tribunal.

At the Social Benfits Tribunal the ODSPA Reverse Onus clause denies the Disabled Person the presumption of innocence and the benefit of reasonable doubt.

The ODSPA Section 23(10) states: “The onus lies on the appellant to satisfy the Tribunal that the Decision of the Director is wrong.”

Directive 13.2 pg6 Onus “It is the appellant’s responsibility to satisfy the SBT that the decision of the Director is wrong.”

The Social Benefits Tribunal submission process is biased against the Disabled Appellant. ODSPA section 65.(2) legislates inequality that impedes the Appellant’s defense and favors the Director.

Directive 13.2 pg7 “If the Appellant intends to introduce written or documentary evidence at a hearing, the materials should be provided to all other parties and to the Tribunal at least twenty

Minister Meilleur, Respected  MPPs,  I, David Thomasson, challenge Minister Meilleur  to publicly defend the constitutionality of the ODSPA. I think it should be easy to explain the constitutional validity of a law intended to help so many of Ontario’s Disabled People. No one can do it precisely because the ODSPA violates the Charter.

Minister Meilleur’s continued silence is strange and compelling proof that she knows the ODSPA is discriminating against disabled people, and she is chosing to continue ODSPA discrimination rather than stop it.

Each act of ODSPSA discrimination occurs via bureaucrats exercising the delegated power of the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Minister Meilleur, please clearly explain how the ODSPA complies with the Charter or immediately stop all ODSPA discrimination against Ontario’s Disabled People.

I, David Thomasson, welcome any rebuttal of my work, and will correct any factual errors published on this website.  I will persist in my efforts to expose and stop unconstitional ODSPA discrimination. Tragically many more people will be harmed before I succeed, simply because Minister Meilleur chooses to allow her staff to use her delegated power to violate the Charter Rights of Disabled People on ODSP.

Minister Meilleur, I welcome your reply and will certainly publish it verbatim on this website,  what is your defence of the ODSPA you enforce?

Sincerely David Thomasson

Feb 9, 2010

To The Registrar
Social Benefits Tribunal
1075 Bay St, 7th Floor
Toronto Ontario
M5S 2B1

Fax 416-326-5135

Re: David Thomasson ODSPA Charter Challenge; Social Benefits Tribunal Appeal

Attention: The Registrar

I, David Thomasson, am a self-represented appellant appealing my recent ODSP suspension. I am making a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenge against the Ontario Disability Support Program Act (ODSPA). My appeal defense is that the legislated ODSPA quasi-judicial Director’s Decision and Internal Review Process violates my fundamental right to Equality.

I consider my Social Benefits Tribunal hearing a necessary preliminary step before filing my Charter Challenge in Ontario Superior Court. My purpose is to create a comprehensive record of proceedings to be used in Superior Court and prove the ODSPA is unconstitutional.

Please inform your legal staff of my Charter Defense and identify the lawyer representing the Director in my case.

Please specify with whom, and at which address, I must file copies of each document as my appeal proceeds. I request that receipt of each document be verified by a reply confirming it is now part of my appeal file. I insist all communications be only in writing to create a verifiable record. I do not have a fax machine.

Please schedule 1 full day to hear my Charter Challenge defence against the Director’s Decision to punish me.

Please provide a full recorded transcript of my SBT hearing.

Please allow the public and news media to attend my SBT hearing and publicly report what occurs.

Please specify all submission dates related to this Social Benefits Tribunal hearing.

I will file my Charter Challenge against the ODSPA in Ontario Superior Court immediately after receiving the Tribunal’s written decision on my appeal Charter Defense. I will contend my SBT hearing is clear proof that the legislated quasi-judicial ODSPA Director’s Decision and Internal Review Process violates my Charter Right to Equality. I will ask the Ontario Superior Court to immediately hear my Charter question rather than force me to repeat my entire defense at a SBT reconsideration hearing.

I am currently completing my Charter Challenge and will soon send it to the Tribunal. I have a long list of questions intended to determine and verify exactly how each step of the quasi-judicial ODSPA Director’s Decision and Internal Review process occurs.

I am making a very public challenge to the ODSPA, using the news media, the internet, the political process, the quasi-judicial process, and the judicial process to publicly prove the ODSPA violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Please see my website www.greendave.ca for more information. Please note that I continue to mock Premier McGuinty on www.greendave.ca as clear proof that my statements are not libellous so they must be true.

I offer to pay $1,000 costs and immediately submit to ODSPA authority as soon as someone, anyone, even anonymously clearly proves how the ODSPA fully complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I ask that the Ontario Government immediately end all ODSPA discrimination against Ontario’s Disabled People.

 I await the Ontario Government’s comprehensive defense of the constitutional legitimacy of the ODSPA.

Sincerely

David Thomasson

Respected MPPs, please raise your voice against ODSPA Discrimination www.peacockpoverty.org/2010/02/01/3107  Ask Minister Meilleur to immediately stop all ODSPA discrimination.  The first step is to use order-in-council to suspend all ODSPA Director’s Decision prosecutions. It can be done in one cabinet meeting. 

Ask Minister Meilleur   mcss@css.gov.on.ca  to protect your disabled constituents from continued ODSPA discrimination before more of your voters are harmed.

For 1,114 days I have offered $1,000 to the first person who can prove the ODSPA fully complies with Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No one can do it precisely because the ODSPSA violates the Charter. Please  act to immediately end all ODSPA discrimination.

Sincerely David Thomasson

Respected MPPs I, David Thomasson, offer to pay $1,000 costs and cease all political and legal actions against the ODSPA  immediately after the Ontario Government proves the ODSPA fully complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or the Ontario Government voluntarily stops all ODSPA discrimination against Ontario’s Disabled People. Nothing else is acceptable.

Respected MPPs neither McGuinty nor Meilleur has offered any defence of the ODSPA.  McGuinty and Meilleur  are still enforcing unconstitutional quasi-judicial ODSPA Director’s Decision prosecutions and punishments.  Right now some of your constituents are being harmed by ODSP. Please raise your voice and demand that McGuinty defend the ODSPA or immediately stop all ODSPA discrimination.

Ask Meilleur yourself: is the ODSPA discriminating against disabled people in your riding? 

Respected MPPs, why is a bad law that no one can defend being enforced against disabled people in your riding? What have you done to stop it?

I, David Thomasson, am simultaneously using the ODSPA quasi-judicial process,  the Ontario Superior Court judicial process, and the public political process to expose ODSPA discrimination. My single goal is to immediately stop all ODSPA discrimination. 

I, David Thomasson, will continue making my settlement offer at all levels of my constitutional challenge.  Please help me stop ODSPA human rights violations.

Sincerely David Thomasson