PART C-D e cision under A p pea l T he de cision und er ap peal is the Mini s try of So cial reconsider ation decision dated Ja nuar y 14, 201 4 w hich child care subsidy as t he subject c hild c are ar ra ngem unde r S e c tion 2 of the Chil d Care Su bsidy Reg ul a t ion (C PA R T D -R eleva nt Legi s lat i on ·· Chil d C ar e Sub sidy Regulati on (CCSR), Secti o n 2 Dev elopmen t a nd S o c i al I nnovation (the mini st r y ) fou n d tha t the ap pella nt w as no t eligible f or a ent is n o t an e ligible ch ild care arr angeme nt CSR) .
P ART E -Su mma r of Fa ct s With t he c onsent of t he p arti es this ap peal w a s co nducte the E mploy me nt a nd A ss i s tance Act (EAA). T he ev i den ce bef ore the minis try at t h e t ime of the reco 1) Copies of dri ver' s lice nses an d medic al c ar e 2} Birth Certific ate fo r the app el lant's chi ld i n d icat 3) Und ated note s igned b y the ap pellant stating tha day s on , 4 d a ys o f f, o n rot a t io na l sche dul es; 4 ) Earnings stat em e n t fo r t h e a ppella n t for the period 5) C hild Care S ubsidy , Applicati on dated O cto ber 2 the appella n t and his spouse ha ve ap pl i ed and th int erfe r e s with her a b i l i t y to care fo r the chil d ren w full-time with one child care provider (prov id er ch i l d care pr o vide r s (provider #1 and provi der 6) Ch il d Care Subsi d y, Me dical Co nditio n d a t ed that t he chi ldr e n's mothe r has an exis tin g medical condition that interferes with car e for he r childre n ; 7) Child Car e Subsi d y, Child Car e Arrange men t of th e child care pr ovide r a s a l icense-not-required child de ta il s of the ap pell a nt's tw o ch i ldren; 8) Le t ter d at e d D ecember 16 , 201 3 f rom a phy s · Develo p m ent ( MCF D ) which st a t es in par t that (provi der # 1) as a patie nt for m any y ear s an d in her ca re, while th e cu r ren t situation b etween best for the ch ildren and the parents at th is time. requ est f or fi nanc i al ass is t a nce f or th e children wh g ra ndpa ren t's home ( provide r #1 ); and , 9) Reques t f o r Reco n si d erati o n Reasons d ated Prio r to t he hearing, t h e a ppellant p rovid ed additio na 1 ) Child Care Subsidy, Child Care Arrangeme nt c hi l d care p rovider (p rovider #2} as a licensed preschool for part-time care of appellant's children; and, 2} Letter dated Febr uary 18, 2014 from the appellant's grandpar • They ha v e supported the appellan t since he made an application for a October 29, 2013. • The appellant has stayed with his wife through difficult times because of men iss ues. The appellant is trusting th a t h good environment and a safe place for his children to grow up. • The appellant was put out of his home for disrupted, his wife needed medical help, and his ma • From August 24, 2013, when they first got the children, until present the children are growing and thriving in every way. They will continue to help the appellant and look after his children until the appellant is reunited as a family . . .... ,.One child.is.attendin re-school 3 da s per week, preparing h).ITl forJindeirg11riEl[l_ d i n writi ng i n a c co rdance wit h s . 22( 3}(b} of nsider a t ion de cisi on incl ud ed : c a r ds ( mostly illegi ble); ing the name of t he ch i ld's m o ther; t his wor k sche du l e varies an d h e work s 4 e nding October 19 , 2013; 9 , 201 3 ind icati ng t hat thi s i s the f ir s t ti me that at the app ellant's spou s e h a s a condi tio n that h o requi re child care . O ne child is c a r ed for # 1 ) and the othe r child is to be c ared fo r by tw o # 2); Octob er 29 , 20 13 in which a p hys ici a n ind ica t ed her a b ility to form dat ed Octo be r 29, 20 13 i ndi c at in g t he name c ar e arr an geme nt (provide r #1) an d icia n t o t h e Mi ni stry o f Childre n and Fami ly the ph ys ician kno w s t h e child c a re pro vi der h e b eliev es that p lacin g the appel lan t's children t he ap pella n t a nd hi s spouse is r e solved, i s the T h e physician s up ports the appellant's i le the y ar e being cared for at his No vembe r 29, 2013. l documents as follows: dated Ja nuary 20, 20 14 i ndi c a ting th e name of a on e of the ents stating in part that: ssis t ance in ta l health i s family will be re un ited in a home t h at wi ll b e a legal reasons, his children's lives were rriage was s trained. . ..
• Th� main reason for rejection [of the appellant's application] is that the grandparents and the appellant are family. This is nothing more than discrimination against family members who are willing to help in a time of crisis. Prior to the hearing, the ministry provided a written submission dated February 18, 2014 stating that: • The child care arrangement with the caregiver who is the appellant's grandmother (provider #1) is an ineligible arrangement since the caregiver is a relative of the children and resides in the same home as the children. • The Child Care Subsidy Child Care Arrangement form dated January 20, 2014 with information regarding preschool for one of the appellant's children (provider #2) was not available in the original decision or the Request for Reconsideration. This form can be submitted to the Child Care Subsidy Centre and eligibility for child care will be reassessed. No objections were raised in the written submissions by either the ministry or the appellant to the admissibility of these documents. The panel admitted the letter from the appellant's grandparents and the Child Care Arrangement form, pursuant to Section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act, as providing information regarding the care of the appellant's children and being in support of information that was before the ministry at reconsideration. The panel considered the ministry submission as argument containing no new evidence. In his Request for Reconsideration, the appellant wrote that: • He feels that the section of the Child Care Act which states that relatives of a child are not eligible for child support is discriminatory towards relatives. • Child care is best done by placement with family members or relatives. • The youngest child has been in the present home for 8 to 10 hours per working day while he and his spouse worked. Now both children are in this home full time because of the present family situation, which is putting a financial strain on the family giving constant support and care for the children. • Child protection services have evaluated the placement home and found that the children are well cared for and given love, care and provision that would likely not be so in a home that would be foreign to them. The youngest child has known this home as a second home for the past 4 ½ years. • To remove the children from this home just to place them in an "approved" home would not only be detrimental to their present physical and mental state, but would also disrupt any routines in place which are necessary for the children's daily care. • Their personal physician, upon seeing the children, stated that they are fortunate to be cared for by the appellant's grandmother, which is the best possible home they could be in. • The home his children are now in is stable, safe and provides a healthy environment for his children. In his Notice of Appeal, the appellant expressed his disagreement with the ministry's reconsideration decision and wrote that: • He failed to submit a Child Care Subsidy Child Care Arrangement form with his previous application and he has now submitted the form. • He believes his children are receiving far better care than any "approved" care givers could or would provide. • · The deC;ision io Jei 1y fii ,ancial sum:iu1 ! is disci imirwtion aqain;:;t family mombors.
T h e m i n i s t r y a l s o r e l i e d o n i t s r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s • T h e a p p e l l a n t a p p l i e d f o r t h e C h i l d C a r e s u b • A C h i l d C a r e S u b s i d y M e d i c a l C o n d i t i o n f o r m t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s w i f e h a s a m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n c h i l d r e n . • I n t h e C h i l d C a r e S u b s i d y C h i l d C a r e A r r a n g a s t h e c h i l d c a r e p r o v i d e r ( p r o v i d e r # 1 ) . • O n t h e C h i l d C a r e S u b s i d y A p p l i c a t i o n f o r m , f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s y o u n g e s t c h i l d b u t n o i n f o C a r e S u b s i d y C h i l d C a r e A r r a n g e m e n t f o r m .i o n w h i c h i n c l u d e d e v i d e n c e t h a t : s i d y f o r h i s t w o c h i l d r e n o n O c t o b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 3 . w a s i n c l u d e d i n w h i c h a p h y s i c i a n c o n f i r m e d t h a t t h a t i n t e r f e r e s w i t h h e r a b i l i t y t o c a r e f o r t h e e m e n t f o r m , t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s g r a n d m o t h e r i s l i s t e d a n o t h e r c a r e p r o v i d e r ( p r o v i d e r # 2 ) i s a l s o l i s t e d r m a t i o n w a s p r o v i d e d f o r p r o v i d e r # 2 i n a C h i l d
PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue on the appeal is whether the ministry's decision, which found that the appellant was not eligible for a child care subsidy as the subject child care arrangement is not an eligible child care arrangement under Section 2 of the Child Care Subsidy Regulation (CCSR), was reasonably supported by the evidence or a reasonable application of the applicable enactment in the circumstances of the appellant. Section 2 of the Child Care Subsidy Regulation (CCSR), provides: What types of child care may be subsidized? 2 The minister may pay a child care subsidy if the child care is provided (a) in a licensed child care setting, (b) in a licence-not-required child care setting, (b.1) in a registered licence-not-required child care setting, (c) in the child's own home, but only if the child care is provided by someone other than a person who (i) is a relative of the child or a dependant of the parent, and (ii) resides in the child's home. Ministry's Position The ministry's position is that the appellant is not eligible for the child care subsidy beginning October 1, 2013 because his children are not attending an eligible child care arrangement as set out in Section 2 of the CCSR. The ministry stated that provider #1, as the appellant's grandmother, is a · · relative of the children and resides in the same home as both of the appellant's children, -The ministry stated that care cannot be provided in a child's own home if the relative resides in the child's home. The ministry acknowledged that the living arrangement for the appellant and his two children is temporary but stated that as provider #1 is a relative of the children and currently lives in the same home as the children, the child care arrangement is not an eligible arrangement under Section 2 of the CCSR. Subsidy Child Care Arrangement form dated January 20, 2014 with information regarding preschool for one of the appellant's children (provider #2) was not available in the original decision or the Request for Reconsideration and, therefore, the ministry has not had an opportunity to consider this information with respect to provider #2. Appellant's position The appellant's position is that he does not dispute that both children have been placed by child pr otection services in the home of his grandmother and argued that the placement has been evaluated and it has been found that the children are well cared for. personal physician, upon seeing the children, stated that they are fortunate to be cared for by the appellant's grandmother, which is the best possible home they could be in. now that both children are in this home full time, it is putting a financial strain on the family giving constant support and care for the children. The appellant argued that child care is best done by placement with family members or relatives and to remove the children from this home just to place them in an "approved" home would be detrimental to their well-being. section of the Child Care Act which states that relatives of a child are not eligible for child support is discriminatory towards relatives. The appellant acknowledged that he failed to submit a Child Care Subsidy Child Care Arrangement form for provider #2 with his previous a h e n o w s u b m i t t e d t h e t o r m . -. · · · · · · h as · -· · · -·or the care is provided by a relative and if The ministry also stated that the Child Care The appellant argued that their The appellant argued that The appellant argued that the " p p · l · i ca · · · t i . o · · n an · d · · · argued that · -· · · " · · · · · · · · · · --
Panel decision Section 2 of the CCSR stipulates that the ministry may pay a child care subsidy if the child care is provided in the child's own home, but only if the child care is provided by someone other than a person who is a relative of the child and who resides in the child's home. Although the appellant's children are residing in the home of the appellant's grandparents, the appellant did not dispute that this is "the child's own home." The appellant's grandparents stated in their letter dated February 18, 2014 that they first got the children on August 24, 2013, that the children are thriving and that they will continue to help the appellant and look after his children until the appellant is reunited with his family. In a letter dated December 16, 2013, the physician of the appellant's grandparents supported the placement of the appellant's children in their care as being best for the children and the parents, while the current situation between the appellant and his spouse is resolved. The appellant admitted that both of his children had been placed by child protection services in the home of his grandmother, that the children remained in his grandmother's care at the time of his application on October 29, 2013, and the panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that the home of the appellant's grandmother is currently "the children's own home." The appellant also did not dispute that his grandmother is a relative of his children and that she resides in the children's home. The appellant argued that he believes his children are receiving far better care than any "approved" care givers could provide and that the decision to deny financial support is discrimination against family members. The ministry did not dispute that the appellant's children are being well cared for by the appellant's grandmother and pointed out that the ministry does not have discretion to grant a subsidy if a child care arrangement does not meet the requirements of Section 2 of the CSSR. The panel also does not have jurisdiction over constitutional questions or jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code as a result of Sections 44 and 46.3 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, which apply to the Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal pursuant to Section 19.1 of the Employment and Assistance Act. On the appellant's Child Care Subsidy Application form, another care provider (provider #2) was listed for the appellant's youngest child but, as no information was submitted for provider #2 in a Child Care Subsidy Child Care Arrangement form, the ministry did not consider the appellant's eligibility for a child care subsidy for this provider. The appellant acknowledged that he failed to submit a Child Care Subsidy Child Care Arrangement form for provider #2 with his previous application and argued that he has now supplied the form with his Notice of Appeal. The ministry has not yet made a decision with respect to the appellant's eligibility for a child care subsidy for provider #2 and an appeal at this stage is, therefore, premature. The ministry suggested that the appellant submit the Child Care Subsidy Child Care Arrangement form to the Child Care Subsidy Centre and that his eligibility for a child care subsidy for provider #2 will be assessed by the ministry at that time. Conclusion The panel finds that the ministry's decision, which concluded that the appellant was not eligible for a child care subsidy as the subject child care arrangement is not an eligible child care arrangement under Section 2 of the CCSR, was a reasonable application of the applicable enactment in the appellant's circumstances and the panel confirms the decision. �-••• I_ -·-->, .. •• 'l: C"'; :· •.:·· • • ·:, ;·i · ,-_. c·1.·-:•,,;! CJ, ·1:··,;y , "2,:,,1 . _ _ • \', · . . · -. -, r •} + ;,•r·,·.:1 c___ _ ______________________________ _ _, '
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.