In September, we held a series of focus groups around the County to hear from people with experience with the Ontario Disability Support Program about their views on the program, and how well it is working for people with disabilities. We spoke with over 100 people who are receiving ODSP benefits, or have applied, or have helped other people with obtain or keep benefits.  Although we have not yet finished our final report, one of the things that came out loud and clear was that far too many people were not aware of additional benefits they may be entitled to under the Act. Some of these benefits are mandatory, that is, if you prove eligibility, you must be granted benefits. Others are discretionary, meaning that you do not have an automatic right to them. Even in this case, however, the worker must make the decision fairly and not arbitrarily. 

The following is a list of the benefits available under the Ontario Disability Support Program which we are most commonly asked about. (Please note that this list is not exhaustive).

Drug benefits: All members of the “benefit unit” (recipients and those they are receiving benefits on behalf of) are entitled to benefits under the Ontario Drug Benefit Program.

Dental services, vision care, and hearing services and items: Recipients, their spouses  and dependent children are entitled to these services. Dependent adults (children 18 years and older) are not eligible.  Dental services are generally limited to the Ministry’s Schedule of Dental Services and Fees, unless the recipient can show that the additional dental work requested is necessary because of their disability.

Cost of diabetic supplies, surgical supplies and dressings: this is a mandatory benefit as long as a doctor identifies the need. The amount of the benefit is determined by the “average cost”. If your costs are greater than the average cost, you should submit the actual receipt for reimbursement.

 

       Medical transportation: cost of transportation reasonably required for medical reasons is a mandatory benefit. The legislation does not set any limits except “reasonableness”. The Ministry’s policy is to set the amount of the benefit on the most economical mode of transportation. If it is not reasonable in a given situation for the recipient to use the most economical mode of transportation, the denial of coverage of a more expensive mode of transportation can be appealed. People at our focus groups also told that some home support and seniors’ support transportation service fees are higher than what the amount they get for medical transportation benefits. Other people (not all) told us they were denied coverage for transportation within a town to see a doctor, or between towns to see a family doctor. Both of these decisions are appealable.

Community Start-Up Benefit: popularly called the “moving allowance”. This is available to people who have to move because they have just been discharged from an institution that provided for their basic needs (shelter, jail) or because it would be harmful to their health or welfare to remain where they are. The benefit is available once a year except in very limited circumstances. The amount available is limited to $1599 if the recipient has dependent children, and $799 otherwise.  

Home Repairs: a payment for repairs to your principal residence may be available under certain circumstances.

   Special diet: an extra amount for a special diet prescribed by a physician may be available, up to a limit of $250 per month.  This is available for a variety of conditions, including pregnancy. 

You should ask your worker about how to apply for these benefits. If you apply and are denied, you must file your request for internal review within 10 days. If you are turned down again, you may be able to appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal, although not all decisions are appealable. Contact the legal clinic for advice or assistance if you need help.

 

 

Playing the “Poverty Game”

 

Over 40% of children under 6 years old in Pembroke and Renfrew are living in poverty. Older children are a bit better, but not much. Even in our wealthier communities (Petawawa, McNab-Braeside and Laurentian Valley), over 10% of children are growing up in poverty. Research on child development has shown that growing up in poverty affects children’s health, educational achievement and life chances both when they are children and throughout their lives.  To raise awareness of the realities and the hard choices low income families have to make because of very limited incomes, the legal clinic, in partnership with the Renfrew County Coalition Against Poverty (RCCAP), developed a Renfrew County version of the “Poverty Game”. We debuted the game at a meeting of the Renfrew County Child Poverty Action Network in Pembroke on June 5. About 35 people took part, mostly from churches and service agencies.  The event was well received, and while it shocked Network members, it was also energizing.

 

The Poverty Game not only sensitizes people to the realities of living in poverty, it is a valuable teaching tool on the rules of Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program that govern recipients’ lives. As such, it is a major part of the legal clinic’s ongoing Public Legal Education Program. The game takes about two hours to play, including time to set up and debrief.  If you want more information about the Game, or want to book a time for us to play it with your group or agency, please contact the legal clinic at 432-8146 or 1-800-267-5871.

  

 

The death of Kimberly Rogers in Sudbury on August 9, 2001 has moved community and poverty action groups to call for an end to the lifetime ban for those convicted of welfare fraud.

 

Ms. Rogers had recently completed her social work degree, achieving top marks.  In April of 2001, she pled guilty to fraud for not declaring her student loan to Ontario Works.  Even though she would be obligated to pay back that loan, a portion of it was still regarded as “income” by Ontario Works.  Ms. Rogers was sentenced to six months house arrest, eighteen months probation, and repayment of the Ontario Works benefits that she collected while she was a student; she was also banned from receiving Ontario Works benefits for three months.  (A conviction for fraud committed in whole or part after April 2000 now results in a lifetime ban from receiving any social assistance). 

Under house arrest and forbidden to leave her apartment except for three hours once a week, Ms. Rogers had no income and no means of earning income to survive.  She was pregnant at the time of her conviction, and had suffered from a long-standing medical condition requiring prescription drugs that she could no longer afford.  

With the help of the Sudbury Legal Clinic, Ms. Rogers challenged the Ontario Works ban of her benefits and the constitutionality of the law itself.  In May of 2001, a ground-breaking decision temporarily reinstating Ms. Roger’s Ontario Works benefits until her case could be heard.  Tragically, she would not live to see that day.

 Ms. Roger’s benefits were reinstated at the provincial rate of $520.00 per month for a single person.  From that amount, 10% was taken off to pay back the amount she owed the government, leaving her with $468.00 per month.  After paying rent, she was left with $18.00 a month for food and all other necessities.  And she was still banned from leaving her apartment except for three hours a week. 

 

Kimberly Rogers died in her sweltering Sudbury apartment on August 9, 2001.  She was eight months pregnant at the time; her unborn baby did not survive.  Due in part to public pressure, the provincial Chief Coroner has called for a formal inquest into her death.  

The Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC), a legal clinic specializing in issues of poverty and income security, is participating at the inquest. "ISAC and other groups seeking standing want to ensure that the Coroner’s inquest considers the key role that provincial policy played in Kimberly Roger’s death.  Punitive, regressive social assistance legislation with inadequate benefits and employment supports, systematic discrimination against poor people, inequities within the criminal justice system, declining community supports, and lack of affordable housing, among other things, may all have contributed to her death.  Even after Kimberly’s death, the provincial government refused to repeal draconian legislation banning people convicted of welfare fraud committed after April 2000 from ever receiving social assistance benefits

 

 

    When the Collection Agent Calls…

 

So many of our clients are harassed by collection agents, who apparently will stop at nothing to intimidate their victims into paying up, now. 

 

How can you protect yourself?

 

What rights do you have?

 

What laws limit what a collection agent can do?

 

 

Renfrew County Legal Clinic presents a new Public Legal Education Program.  This dramatic, interactive session will give you the information you need to fight back.