The record · October 2026 · DC-26-00003254
City of Ottawa, Ontario Works
Internal review of the refusal of emergency assistance application 10000305517 dated 27 October: a reviewer other than the author under subsection 70 (2) of O. Reg. 134/98, named by 31 October; the decision set aside, the application determined under section 56 and paid; the audit trail of the letter. The ground of the refusal was reversed by the Administrator on 2 September; the Tribunal order of 21 August is in force.
The letter ·
Request for internal review - Emergency Assistance application 10000305517 - decision letter dated 27 October 2026 - DC-26-00003254
TO THE ONTARIO WORKS ADMINISTRATOR, CITY OF OTTAWA
Danilo Dzyuban, Emergency Assistance application 10000305517, Divisional Court file DC-26-00003254.
Conduct an internal review, under section 27 of the Ontario Works Act, 1997 and section 69 of O. Reg. 134/98, of the decision in the letter dated 27 October 2026, signed by Michelle Lamonde for the Ontario Works Administrator and emailed to me on 28 October 2026 at 1:51 PM.
The decision is void and fraudulent for these reasons.
1. Michelle Lamonde is knowingly enforcing a legally dead decision. The letter rests on the Notice of Decision of 18 June 2026 and the Internal Review Decision of 30 July 2026. On 2 September 2026 the Social Assistance Intake Unit, for the Ontario Works Administrator, reversed that exact ground and declared it "incorrect": "we have determined that the original ineligible decision was incorrect." The same day the Administrator approved my application for Ontario Works financial assistance as of 5 June 2026, and the City of Ottawa paid $1,326.27 under that approval on 3 September 2026. Relying on a voided decision to deny emergency relief is administrative fraud.
2. The letter is in direct contempt of the Social Benefits Tribunal. On 21 August 2026, in file 2608-06747, the Tribunal ordered interim assistance to me from 1 August 2026 to 31 January 2027 and directed that the amount "shall not take into account any income, assets or conditions of eligibility disputed in this appeal." The order states: "Only the SBT can cancel or vary this decision for interim assistance." The order of 21 August 2026 insulated my eligibility. The letter of 27 October 2026 is a rogue, bad-faith attempt to override a binding Tribunal order, and Michelle Lamonde has no jurisdiction to do that.
3. The letter is a written confession of statutory breach. It states: "a review of the conditions set out in Section 56 of Ontario Regulation 134/98 ... was not undertaken." Subsection 56 (3) commands: "The administrator shall determine the amount of emergency assistance payable." Subsection 6 (3) of O. Reg. 134/98 treats eligibility for emergency assistance separately from eligibility for income assistance. The City admits in black and white that it refused to perform its mandatory duty under the Regulation. That is fettered discretion and breach of statutory duty.
4. The date of the decision is falsified. The letter claims the request "was determined on July 30th, 2026." The City's own case note of 30 July 2026, released to me under PIR-2026-00070, records: "EA app. was withdrawn." No decision existed on that date. Between 4 August and 4 September 2026 the City gave 4 written accounts of application 10000305517: withdrawn; no intake; withdrawn and Ontario Works pursued instead; not withdrawn. On 26 October 2026 the City wrote that no decision letter was required because the application was never completed. The letter of 27 October 2026 is the 6th account and the first to assert a determination. It was backdated to 30 July 2026 and issued 89 days later, after service of the Notice of Application in DC-26-00003254 and 2 days after my written demand of 26 October 2026, solely to manufacture a defence for that litigation. That is bad faith of the highest order.
5. The first part of the letter states that decisions respecting emergency assistance cannot be appealed to the Social Benefits Tribunal. The third part of the same letter instructs me how to appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal.
6. This is intentional misfeasance in public office. Michelle Lamonde weaponized her administrative power to retaliate against an applicant in active litigation against the City. She knew of the Tribunal's order of 21 August 2026. She knew of the Administrator's reversal of 2 September 2026. She knew of the proceeding in DC-26-00003254. She is acting outside the scope of lawful municipal authority.
The Administrator is to:
(1) Assign this review, under subsection 70 (2) of O. Reg. 134/98, strictly to personnel uninvolved with the letter of 27 October 2026 and other than Michelle Lamonde. Name that person to me in writing by 31 October 2026 at 5:00 PM.
(2) Set aside the decision of 27 October 2026.
(3) Determine application 10000305517 under subsections 56 (2) and 56 (3) of O. Reg. 134/98 on the facts as they stood on 29 July 2026, determine the amount payable, and pay it in full.
(4) Deliver the decision on internal review in writing with every element required by subsection 71 (2) of O. Reg. 134/98: the original decision, whether it is confirmed, set aside or varied, the reasons, and the effective date. Subsection 70 (1) prescribes the time for completing the review.
(5) Produce the SAMS audit trail for the letter of 27 October 2026: the date and time the decision was entered, the date and time the letter was generated, and the user who logged each entry. Deliver it by 31 October 2026 at 5:00 PM. The City is on notice that backdating a decision to evade Divisional Court scrutiny is bad faith.
(6) Take notice that the City's conduct in issuing the backdated letter of 27 October 2026 forms the basis of my claim for substantial indemnity costs in DC-26-00003254.
This decision goes to the Social Benefits Tribunal, to the Divisional Court in DC-26-00003254 and to the Ombudsman of Ontario.
This letter and any reply go on the public legal record at https://dzyuban.com/legal/record/dc-26-00003254/
Danilo Dzyuban
Due 31 Oct