LESSONS TO BE LEARNED: THE DECISION OF THE SOCIAL BENEFITS TRIBUNAL IN TRANCHEMONTAGNE V. ONTARIO (DIRECTOR, DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM)
In April 2009, the Ontario Social Benefits Tribunal ended a 10 years battle for appellants, Norman Werbeski and Robert Tranchemontagne in its deliberation that the Ontario Disability Supports Program Act violated their rights as enshrined in the Ontario Human Rights Code when it failed to recognize their alcoholism as a disability. 

Drawing specific excerpts from the Respondents (Ontario government) defence and the Social Benefit Tribunal’s decision, the essay looks at how government policy affects persons with substance addiction and argues that Section 5(2) of the ODSPA places burdens on substance abusers and contributes significantly to their social stigma. 

The outcomes of excluding substance addiction from the United States Social Assistance Programmes are reviewed and referred to in analyzing the Respondent’s claims. The conclusion highlights how this case reflects key steps towards greater inclusion for persons with disabilities and in particular for those whose disability is addiction and alcoholism. 

Keywords: Social Benefits Tribunal, Ontario Disability Supports Program Act, alcoholism, disability, stigma
The probable impacts of the removal of the addiction disability benefit in Ontario.
In Ontario, those dependent on substances are no longer eligible for welfare payments based on an addiction disability. While the impact of this program has not been assessed, evidence from a similar policy shift in the USA suggests deleterious effects on the health and social functioning of about half of those who lose this form of social support. A review of the research on the chronic-illness view of addiction, the fostering of stigma by exclusionary social policies, and the negative effects on mental health and homeless status associated with the loss of welfare benefits leads to the conclusion that this is an ill-advised policy for Ontario. Its continuation there, and its extension to other provinces, is not recommended.
Storing vaccines at the correct temperature.
cases in infants now seem to be making a considerable contribution to endemic transmission (table), one approach would be to offer infants early measles vaccination before giving measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine in the second year of life. Studies to determine the serological response to early vaccination in infants of vaccinated and naturally immune mothers and the accuracy of a clinical diagnosis of measles in infants and older age groups are under way, together with theoretical studies to explore the impact of such a strategy. An epidemiologically and logistically different approach to routinely offering two doses would be to attempt to vaccinate all subjects in a wide age range within a short time and thereby interrupt transmission. This has recently been done in the English speaking Caribbean, where over 95% of all children aged 1-15 in eight of the 17 islands were vaccinated within one month.' To ensure elimination this initiative must be repeated periodically, the interval and targeted age groups being decided on the basis of epidemiological data such as the age specific prevalence of the antibody,6 and results of theoretical studies. Clearly, further work is required to provide a sound scientific basis for deciding future policy. We suggest that in the short term the cost effectiveness of offering measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine to secondary school children should be decided locally on the basis of a district's previous uptake of measles vaccine and present age specific notification rates.