"The reinvestment expense is denied as it is determined that the Prescribed Medical Item (PMI) is for accommodation for your particular medical condition rather than for a business reinvestment to increase revenue."

The stated assumption correctly concludes that the PMI is for accommodation of the medical condition but incorrectly concludes that reinvestment in accommodation would not increase revenue. Furthermore the assumption that ODSP covers expenses of accommodation under the shelter component of the budget is faulty. There is a significant difference between accommodation (shelter) and accommodation of special needs arising out of a disability and prescribed by a medical specialist. If the accommodation of prescribed special needs is in fact covered under the ODSP budget, then please fill the prescription so a business reinvestment expense will not be required. Otherwise, the basis to request the expense is to accommodate known special needs not covered under ODSP budget in order to remove the barriers that would otherwise limit or prevent increase in revenue.

The underlying assumption that the Prescribed Medical Item would not increase revenue is faulty. The doctor clearly states:

"Any activity that moves away from or does not first establish appropriate measures for accommodation may result in further aggravation to his medical condition."
(Copy enclosed)

Without filling the prescription, increase in revenue is limited or prevented. Conversely, by filling the prescription, revenue would likely increase by removing the known barriers as stated. The assumption that reinvestment in a Prescribed Medical Item would not increase revenue and that ODSP already covers such expenses is faulty, therefore the conclusion is faulty and the business reinvestment expense should be allowed.

If ODSP is unable or unwilling to fill the prescription for accommodation in full, and also chooses to impose barriers that would deny obtaining a medical prescription through the proceeds of what can be done, then the decision improperly withholds access to medical treatment, creates barriers, and imposes a penalty for trying myself. Such conduct will inevitably sustain instead of relieve sickness and disability, increase economic burden on the ODSP and health care programs, and is an indicator of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 12.

Deferring decision to the appeals process has already been done and the medical condition and treatment is known. Repetitive use of the appeals process to undertake decisions that appear to be within your jurisdiction is disingenuous to both client and government. Furthermore, it can be shown that in considering requests for approval:

a) continuous positive net income is not required to produce profit because in order to compete, credit is extended to include payment after delivery of service and after a grace period, expenses may exceed income at times, thus the business cycle does not complete itself in a month making this requirement impractical;

1. continuous positive net income is not required to produce profit because in order to compete, credit is extended to include payment after delivery of service and after a grace period, expenses may exceed income at times, thus the business cycle does not complete itself in a month making this requirement impractical;
2. reinvestment in PMI will increase revenues as previously explained;
3. reinvestment will replace existing worn out PMI already in place;
4. reinvestment will upgrade PMI equipment and allow the service to be produced more effectively;
5. economic loss is not likely because I work from home and provide a service. Assumed debt is less than accounts receivable at any given time because I have no credit. If there is default in payment, then the loss is limited to opportunity foregone and since the expenses do not require debt to carry, liability is limited to the extent of retained earnings or savings;
6. assumptions for denial are faulty and incomplete;
7. production of barriers through acts or failure to act under the Constitution, Ontario Disability Support Program, and any other law that may apply, improperly limits or prevents accommodation of special needs, improperly withholds access to medical treatment, serves to perpetuate both disability and Ministry case load, and is economically inefficient.

The assessment by the Regional Director, Mr. Peter Steckenreiter, to make monthly deductions based on faulty assumptions without benefit of internal review as specified in the letter now under consideration, appears premature and vexatious. Please reverse the decision forthwith, return income improperly deducted, and cease and desist from further cruel and unusual treatment or punishment for my trying to remove barriers and obtain medical treatment.

Nevertheless, should an appeal be required, I will rely on letters issued by the Ministry of Community and Social Services as an admission of circumventing the Canadian Charter of Rights by improperly using Regulations and Directives of the Ontario Disability Support Program.

Sincerely,
xxxxx xxxx

cc. xxxxxx xxxxxx
encl. Letter of diagnosis and treatment.