Legal Blog
More on Disability and Deduction
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Back in an entry titled Social Assistance and ODSP Recipients dated, Wednesday, February 20, 2008 we discussed deduction in the context of plaintiff injury compensation. The case of Mule v. The Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program of The Ministry of Community and Social Services, released in November 2007 is good news for injured Plaintiffs who receive social assistance.
The Appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and ended up settling his claim in December 2004. He received disability payments pursuant to the Ontario Disability Support Program Act in December 2003.
The Director determined that part of the settlement representing the prejudgment interest did not constitute "damages or compensation for pain and suffering as a result of injury" within the meaning of s. 43(1)4 of O.Reg. 222/98, and so it did not constitute exempt income for the purpose of calculating the appellant’s entitlement to disability benefits. The Social Benefits Tribunal affirmed that decision, reasoning that prejudgment interest constitutes damages for delay, not damages for pain and suffering. The appellant appealed.
Held:
The court allowed the appeal. The Regulation exempts from income "damages or compensation for pain and suffering". The most appropriate meaning to give to the word “for” in this context is “having as a reason or cause”. As a result of injuries sustained by the appellant, he was entitled to damages. As a result of the fact that those damages were paid four years after the accident, he was entitled to prejudgment interest. However, the entitlement to prejudgment interest was dependent on the entitlement to damages, and could not exist independently. Both damages and prejudgment interest were paid “for” the pain and suffering that resulted from the appellant’s injuries. The prejudgment interest was exempted from income.