Skip to main content

Canada: Provincial Court Rules Ontario Benefits Law Discriminates Against Alcoholics, Drug Addicts

Submitted by Phillip Smith on (Issue #583)
Drug War Issues

An Ontario law that bars alcoholics and drug addicts from receiving long-term disability benefits violates the provincial Human Rights Code, the Ontario Divisional Court ruled last Friday. The ruling effectively strikes down a provision of the Ontario Disability Support Program enacted by the former Conservative government in 1997 that barred people from receiving long-term benefits if their "sole impairment" was addiction.

Last week's ruling was the latest in a 10-year legal struggle by two Ontario men, Robert Tranchemontagne and Norman Werbeski, who suffer from alcoholism. The pair were denied long-term assistance under the Disability Support Program and were instead found to be eligible only for Ontario Works benefits.

Unlike the disability program, the employment program requires recipients to be involved in "employment assistance activities." Ontario Works also offers substantially smaller benefits, $536 a month, compared to $959 a month under the disability program.

The pair lost when they appealed the ruling to the provincial Social Benefits Tribunal, but in 2006, the Canadian Supreme Court ordered the tribunal to reconsider the case with an eye toward seeing if the law violated the Human Rights Code. The tribunal did so, and found that the exception for addiction disability indeed violated the code.

The Ontario government appealed that ruling, and a hearing was held in December. There, government witnesses argued that almost all addicted people could work and that lower payments could provide an incentive for recovery. But medical experts for the two men retorted that addicts are in a better position to recover if their lives are stable, with low stress, and adequate income to support themselves.

The Ontario Divisional Court justices sided unanimously with the two men. The government failed to provide a "tenable justification" for its decision to treat addicts differently from other people with disabilities, wrote Justice Denise Bellamy for the court. The Ontario law "promotes a stereotypical attitude towards addicted persons. It suggests that those who do not suffer from an additional medically recognized disorder are not genuinely disabled, or in any case are not as disabled as persons with concurrent disorders," wrote Judge Bellamy.

"The Human Rights Code does not permit us to choose between the disabilities we like and those we do not," said attorney Lesli Bisgould. The Ontario government should now "move on" and not bother to appeal any further, she told the National Post.

Ontario is pondering whether to pursue the appeal, government lawyers said.

Permission to Reprint: This content is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license. Content of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.

Comments

Anonymous (not verified)

Isn't this what you ment? It really pisses me off when people write about
Alcoholics"slash" Drug addicts or even worse Alcohol and Drugs or even "worser" Alcohol OR Drugs. It is like saying Apples and Fruit or apples Or fruit.It sounds petty of me but I actually talk to kids fresh out of rehab and get drunk waving their booze bottle around and braging about how they are now drug free. Seriously, and I ask them if they think alcohol is not a drug and they always reply " no because alcohol is legal. So get it right, MmmmK

Fri, 05/01/2009 - 2:23pm Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

That's christian exceptionism for you... virtues built upon failings and illusions... and putting their gods grace before your constitutional democracy.

The correct statement is 'Drugs, especially alcohol and tobacco'.

The fundamental problem remains religious fundamentalism and the exceptionism that always follows!

But what can we expect, or hope for, from people that believe the most natural thing in the universe is the super unnatural?

Alcohol, christian americas drug of choice!

Fri, 05/01/2009 - 4:19pm Permalink
mlang52 (not verified)

In reply to by Anonymous (not verified)

What about he Christians who are part of this group? Don't be such a jerk! Your generalizations alienate me. But, you are not brave enough to post under anything but anonymous! Just as your argument against "fundamentalists" come across, those people with the prohibitionist mindset would come back with a "just another doper" response to you!

There is no alcohol or drug prohibition in the old or new testament.
The Bible teaches temperance in the use of alcohol. That means use responsibility and don't get falling down drunk. But, I do admit, I have never seen a pot smoker falling down intoxicated!

Mon, 05/04/2009 - 9:37am Permalink
Just Me (not verified)

If we want to discuss what the government should do - if 'drugs' are illegal, our laws should also include alcohol and caffeine, since they are both a drug as well.  Then, if the government really cared so much about our health and well-being, they would put most doctors and all pharmaceutical companies in jail (and fine them big time) for their roles as 'drug pushers' (causing serious harm and countless deaths).  Most of our store shelves would have to be cleared off too, because of all the harmful and often deadly (over a period of time) ingredients in the products sold there!  It could go on an on.  To a certain extent, we have to/each individual has to take responsibility for their own actions, including what they eat, drink, smoke, etc.  However, it might be a nice compromise if the government provided easy access, and sometimes mandatory enrollment into 'health facilities' to really help people who wanted to or needed to break an addition - whether to 'drugs' (prescription and otherwise), alcohol, cigarettes, 'bad' foods, and so on too!  It's not just about making things "legal" - or it shouldn't be!  It should be about providing "health" options to EVERYONE!

 

 

 

    

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 11:47am Permalink

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.