Ontario Government (Conservative majority), 2025-29

[lenaitch]

A question is whether a status check (citizenship or immigration) is part of the checklist used by intake staff. If it is, and the staffer didn't, that's a personnel problem. If it isn't or discretionary/inconsistent, that's a policy/legislation problem.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I wonder if the worker would routinely have access to that information anyway?

In my dealings with IRCC, they’re grudging in their information sharing. I don’t know if someone working for Ontario Works even could simply ask about immigration status and expect an answer.

Good question. The tribunal people make it sound like they do as a part of the evaluation process.


An Ontario Works intake case officer had not conducted an immigration search to ascertain the man’s benefits eligibility.

 

[brihard]

Good question. The tribunal people make it sound like they do as a part of the evaluation process.


An Ontario Works intake case officer had not conducted an immigration search to ascertain the man’s benefits eligibility.

That doesn’t necessarily mean they routinely do; just that in this case they didn’t.

 

[Jarnhamar]

That doesn’t necessarily mean they routinely do; just that in this case they didn’t.

Would applying it on a case by case basis not open them up for favoritism accusations?

The story here reads the worker went out of his way to avoid it, knowing to do so would jeapordize buddies status.

 

[brihard]

Would applying it on a case by case basis not open them up for favoritism accusations?

The story here reads the worker went out of his way to avoid it, knowing to do so would jeapordize buddies status.

I guess it would come down to whether the federal Privacy Act, and any agreement between the feds and the province, allow for that sort of information sharing to be done routinely without some sort of statutory investigation.

I have no idea.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

That doesn’t necessarily mean they routinely do; just that in this case they didn’t.

That should be easy enough to check. Pull 20 random files from each officer and review them for inconsistencies.

 

[brihard]

That should be easy enough to check. Pull 20 random files from each officer and review them for inconsistencies.

Sure. I’m just speaking to the individual case reported on and what has been reported.

 

[The Bread Guy]

A titch more detail -- this, from the decision itself (also attached):

... the Administrator’s submissions identify that the Appellant initially applied for OW assistance in August of 2023 and that at that time an immigration search conducted did not produce a match. Caseworker notes from the Appellant’s October 2025 application for OW identify that the search was not conducted in order to avoid possibly jeopardizing the Appellant’s situation in Canada. The Tribunal is persuaded that the check performed in August 2023 suggests that there was no active removal order in place regarding the Appellant. Although the check was not performed in October 2025 the Tribunal found little reason to believe the results would differ, or in the alternative, finds that the Administrator could have performed the check if there were cause for concern ...