Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Jevgeni Natotsijev and Irina Natotsijeva appealed the cancellation of their Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits after the Director found their income exceeded the eligibility threshold.
• Central to the appeal was whether the appellants were late in requesting an internal review, which the Tribunal found they were, with no explanation provided for the delay.
• Jurisdiction was the threshold issue, as the Social Benefits Tribunal held it lacked authority to hear the appeal without a completed internal review, applying Walsh v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2012 ONCA 463.
• Procedural fairness was contested, with the appellants arguing they were entitled to an in-person hearing with a Russian interpreter rather than a written process.
• Allegations of document tampering and member bias were raised but found to be entirely without foundation on the record.
• Factual findings of the Tribunal — including the timeliness determination — were not reviewable on appeal, which was limited to questions of law under s. 31(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997.

Facts of the case

Jevgeni Natotsijev and Irina Natotsijeva (the appellants) were recipients of income support under the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). In July 2023, the Director of ODSP cancelled their benefits on the basis that their income from other sources exceeded the threshold for entitlement. The appellants were notified of their right to request an internal review within 30 days and were advised that a late request had to be accompanied by reasons explaining the delay. The Director found their request was late and that no explanation had been provided, and accordingly denied the extension of time. The appellants disputed the lateness finding both before the Social Benefits Tribunal and before the Divisional Court.

Statutory and procedural framework

The appellants' right of appeal to the Divisional Court was limited to questions of law under s. 31(1) of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 25, Sch B. Section 10(2) of the same Act provides that applicants may re-apply for income support on new or other evidence or where material circumstances have changed. The appeal process at the Tribunal level required a completed internal review before the Tribunal could assume jurisdiction, a requirement confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Walsh v. Ontario (Disability Support Program), 2012 ONCA 463, which held that a decision to deny an extension of time to seek an internal review is not appealable to the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal cannot hear an appeal from a Director's decision to end benefits without an internal review having occurred.

Reasoning and analysis

The Tribunal directed that the preliminary jurisdictional question would be determined first, in writing, having regard to the history of the matter, which included two prior in-person hearing dates that had to be postponed due to the ill health of one of the appellants, as well as objections by the appellants to both telephone and videoconference hearings. The Tribunal found that the appellants had demonstrated no difficulty communicating in writing throughout the proceedings, including through lengthy and detailed written submissions. On the merits of the jurisdictional issue, the Tribunal found the appellants were late in requesting the internal review and applied Walsh to conclude it lacked jurisdiction to proceed.

On appeal, the Divisional Court addressed each of the appellants' grounds. On procedural fairness, the Court was not persuaded that the written hearing process was unfair given the procedural history, the appellants' demonstrated written communication abilities, and the fact that the hearing was limited to a preliminary jurisdictional question. The Court rejected allegations that the Director had wrongly altered documents after the fact, finding these to be completely without foundation. It also rejected the claim that the Tribunal member who directed the written process was biased, finding that neither his reasons nor his prior involvement in an earlier decision against the appellants gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The appellants' argument that they should have had a right of reply to the Director's submissions was also dismissed, as they had a full opportunity to advance all arguments in their appeal to the Court.

On the question of timeliness, the Court confirmed that the Tribunal's findings of fact — including the finding that the appellants were late — were open to it on the evidence and could not be challenged in an appeal confined to questions of law. The Court also addressed the appellants' reliance on a 2019 Tribunal decision, which they claimed had granted them permanent eligibility for ODSP. The Court found this to be a misunderstanding: the appeal before the Tribunal was specific to the 2023 decision to discontinue benefits, and the appeal to the Divisional Court was from the 2024 Tribunal decision declining jurisdiction only. The Tribunal was found to have applied the legal principles in Walsh without error.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Divisional Court, comprising Corbett, Matheson, and Mew JJ., dismissed the appeal on June 2, 2026. The Director of ODSP was the successful party. No monetary award or damages were at issue in this proceeding; the Court made no order as to costs. The appellants were, however, noted to retain the ability to re-apply for income support under s. 10(2) of the Act if material circumstances change or new evidence becomes available.